Title: History for ready reference, Volume 4 (of 6): Nicæa to Tunis
Author: Larned, J. N. (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 4 (of 6): Nicæa to Tunis" ***
VOLUME 4 (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 "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
   case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

   To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
     "^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)

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
   Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
   including URLs of available internet versions.

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

   To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
   characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words
   "first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
     "first.{1,100}second"

End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

[Image: Spine]

History For Ready Reference, Volume 4 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 IV—NICÆA TO TUNIS

SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.
THE C. A. NICHOLS COMPANY, PUBLISHERS
MDCCCXCV

COPYRIGHT, 1894.
BY J. N. LARNED.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts., U. S. A.
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.

Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V.
(1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618,
   To follow page 2458

Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at
the Peace of Campo Formio (1797),
   To follow page 2554

Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent,
under Trajan (A. D. 116),
   To follow page 2712

Map of Europe at the death of Justinian (A. D. 565),
   To follow page 2742

Two maps, of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, in 1715,
   To follow page 2762

Four development maps of Spain,
9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries,
   To follow page 2976


LOGICAL OUTLINE, IN COLORS.
Roman history,
   To follow page 2656

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
Ninth and Tenth Centuries,
   To follow page 2746

{2359}

NICÆA OR NICE:
   The founding of the city.

   Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of
   the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally
   the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in
   honor of his wife.

NICÆA OR NICE:
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 325.
   The First Council.

   "Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see
   ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A.
   D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to
   the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It
   was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was
   held within a measurable distance from the seat of government.
   … Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight
   came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was
   composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin
   rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the
   Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is
   strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are
   told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused
   the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority
   as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as
   low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though
   not the first in mental power and energy of character, was
   accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the
   representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern
   Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or
   'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet
   emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known
   title of dignity."

      _R. W. Bush,
      St. Athanasius,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lectures 3-5._

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.
   Acquired by the Turks.
   The capital of the Sultan of Roum.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.
   Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.
   Recovery from the Turks.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1204-1261.
   Capital of the Greek Empire.

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1330.
   Capture by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1402.
   Sacked by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

   ----------NICARAGUA: Start--------


NICARAGUA:
   The Name.

   Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled
   in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the
   Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of
   Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides
   being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given
   to the surrounding country, and to the lake."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page. 489, foot-note._

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1502.
   Coasted by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted federations and their failure.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
   Joint protectorate of the United States and
   Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.

   "The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of
   Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which
   followed almost immediately on the development of the gold
   mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening
   of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance
   to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a
   treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of
   Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of
   Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit
   over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by
   both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this
   treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of
   the United States, and supplied by capital from the United
   States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In
   1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the
   United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the
   opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the
   Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of
   Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by
   British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern
   coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of
   such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by
   Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great
   Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito
   Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they
   had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty
   over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their
   soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United
   States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the
   pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it
   were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the
   Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.
   Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General
   Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at
   Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord
   Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the
   British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the
   construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the
   United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government
   declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint
   protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was
   signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the
   ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is
   commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its
   language in the first article is that "the Governments of the
   United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither
   the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself
   any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that
   neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications
   commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or
   fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
   Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
   Central America; nor will either make use of any protection
   which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
   either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the
   purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
   of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
   the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
   assuming or exercising dominion over the same;
{2360}
   nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of
   any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence
   that either may possess, with any State or Government through
   whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
   acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens
   or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to
   commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not
   be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of
   the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been
   repeated controversies between the two governments respecting
   the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain
   having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British
   Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the
   treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the
   United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch
   from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,
   1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having
   failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United
   States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,
   second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her
   agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."

      _F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      page 440._

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
   The invasion of Walker and his Filibusters.

   "Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It
   contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic
   by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there
   are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the
   time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two
   oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has
   always been thought of great importance to the United States.
   The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure
   of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between
   the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction
   of being the first important town in Central America to raise
   the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained
   the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the
   leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat,
   called in to help him an American named William Walker.
   Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who
   had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and
   become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days
   it was supposed in the United States that the time for
   engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had
   already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853,
   had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of
   Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left
   to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild
   expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to
   his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found
   himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central
   America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855,
   having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he
   landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and,
   aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his
   own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army.
   Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional
   President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him,
   and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of
   Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on
   the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great
   military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America.
   One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous
   gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the
   entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good
   deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured
   himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep
   it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The
   statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that
   he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support
   from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms
   against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the
   remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker,
   still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New
   Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at
   the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river
   towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and
   sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last
   expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he
   hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the
   Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the
   soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and
   shot, September 12, 1860."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      chapter 21, section 8._

   "Though he never evinced much military or other capacity,
   Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the
   chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful
   against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his
   progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the
   ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by
   exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who
   mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of
   President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree
   reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose
   and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he
   proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of
   the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American
   travel to and from California through that country, and
   cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his
   forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled
   gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his
   standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two
   years."

      _H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 3, chapters 16-17._

      _J. J. Roche,
      The Story of the Filibusters,
      chapters 5-18._

   ----------NICARAGUA: End--------

NICE (NIZZA), Asia Minor.

      See NICÆA.

   ----------NICE, France: Start--------

NICE (NIZZA), France: A. D. 1388.
   Acquisition by the House of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

{2361}

NICE: A. D. 1542.
   Siege by French and Turks.
   Capture of the town.
   Successful resistance of the citadel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

NICE: A. D. 1792.
   Annexation to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

NICE: A. D. 1860.
   Cession to France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------NICE, France: End--------

NICEPHORUS I.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D. 802-811.

   Nicephorus II.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 963-969.

   Nicephorus III.,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1078-1081.

NICHOLAS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1825-1855.

   Nicholas I., Pope, 858-867.

   Nicholas II., Pope, 1058-1061.

   Nicholas III., Pope, 1277-1280.

   Nicholas IV., Pope, 1288-1292.

   Nicholas V., Pope, 1447-1455.

   Nicholas Swendson, King of Denmark, 1103-1134.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), and the Siege of Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

NICIAS (NIKIAS), The Peace of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

NICOLET, Jean, Explorations of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

   ----------NICOMEDIA: Start--------

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 258.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 292-305.
   The court of Diocletian.

   "To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of
   Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the
   east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the
   verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between
   the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and
   at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space
   of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to
   have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to
   Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. …
   Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,
   celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether
   he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."

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

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

NICOMEDIA: A. D. 1326.
   Capture by the Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

   ----------NICOMEDIA: End--------

NICOPOLIS.

   Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31,
   in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the
   camp which his army occupied.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28.

   ----------NICOPOLIS: Start--------

NICOPOLIS, Armenia, Battle of (B. C. 66).

   The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and
   ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in
   Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city
   called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 8._

NICOPOLIS: Battle of (B. C. 48).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

   ----------NICOPOLIS, Armenia: End--------

NICOPOLIS, Bulgaria, Battle of (A. D. 1396).

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMAN): A. D. 1389-1403.

NICOSIA:
   Taken and sacked by the Turks (1570).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

NIEUPORT, Battle of (1600).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

NIGER COMPANY, The Royal.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

NIHILISM.
NIHILISTS.

   "In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are
   devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the
   expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are
   employed universally, and all the world understands what is
   meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a
   novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at
   that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth
   of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and
   Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it
   was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor
   Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led
   directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the
   nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary
   generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin
   Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after
   making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention
   of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of
   hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy
   of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of
   the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul
   of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an
   assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his
   enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains
   of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities
   and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to
   Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction,
   he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after
   the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea
   of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back
   foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However,
   it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression,
   that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman
   Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the
   emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman
   calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national
   literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When
   Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of
   despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas
   vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was
   ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before
   explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we
   must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It
   means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or
   estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual
   life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said,
   indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but
   there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not
   a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members
   shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the
   serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the
   intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit,
   subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the
   revolutionary element in Russia?
{2362}
   From the Occident, from France, from the negative,
   materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia,
   imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany,
   from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the
   German universities, and which they diffused throughout their
   own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure
   Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the
   first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas
   brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an
   indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of
   quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most
   despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a
   philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely
   democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no
   political color about it at the beginning. During the decade
   between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a
   sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward
   everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary
   ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel,
   'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward,
   ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type.
   After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the
   Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began
   to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to
   send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era
   of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases
   have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along
   that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that
   leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet
   nihilism never became a political party as we understand the
   term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The
   fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute
   revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists,
   covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to
   sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of
   nihil."

      _E. P. Bazan,
      Russia, its People and its Literature,
      book 2, chapters 1-2._

   "Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary
   spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept
   curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the
   Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now
   obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the
   number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as
   is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy
   themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to
   bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not
   exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that
   nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all
   circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread
   points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in
   Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound
   scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their
   present form, what we call royal prerogative, church,
   marriage, property."

      _Georg Brandes,
      Impressions of Russia,
      chapter 4._

   "The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary
   movement, which flourished in the first decade after the
   Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and
   1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few
   traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. …
   Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence
   from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side
   with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from
   serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly
   so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in
   the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed
   upon the individual by society, by family life, and by
   religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not
   against political despotism, but against the moral despotism
   that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual.
   But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in
   the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle
   the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism
   that characterises the present movement."

      _Stepniak,
      Underground Russia,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Storm-Cloud._

      _L. Tikhomirov,
      Russia, Political and Social,
      books 6-7 (volume 2)._

      _E. Noble,
      The Russian Revolt._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 3, chapter 4._

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881;
      and ANARCHISTS.

NIKA SEDITION, The.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

NIKIAS.

      See NICIAS.

NILE, Naval Battle of the.

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

NIMEGUEN:
   Origin.

      See BATAVIANS.

NIMEGUEN: A. D. 1591.
   Siege and capture by Prince Maurice.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

NIMEGUEN, The Peace of (1678-1679).

   The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland,
   with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II.,
   and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain,
   Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
   1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties
   negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these
   treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and
   Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their
   possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were
   restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in
   Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland
   in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The
   United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war
   which might continue between France and the other powers, and
   guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should
   have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty;
   Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should
   make peace within six weeks after the exchange of
   ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of
   commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 1, chapter 6._

   The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.
   France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,
   "Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had
   gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of
   Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,
   and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with
   Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that
   peace.
{2363}
   But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of
   Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,
   Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,
   Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was
   declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis
   gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired
   liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other
   respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was
   reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of
   Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which
   rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only
   was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty
   of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads
   traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of
   territory throughout their length, and the places contained
   therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,
   preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,
   when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."
   Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg
   and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and
   between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded
   during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen
   was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of
   Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,
   close for any length of time the sources of strife."

      _O. Airy,
      The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Temple,
      Memoirs,
      part 2 (Works, volume 2)._

NINE WAYS, The.

      See AMPHIPOLIS;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

NINETY-FIVE THESES OF LUTHER, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

NINETY-TWO, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

NINEVEH.

   "In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great
   city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in
   arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and
   mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth
   from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered
   countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of
   sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time
   came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around
   [the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies].
   Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege;
   how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a
   vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of
   kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his
   treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never
   was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very
   knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that,
   two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his
   Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the
   ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa.
   Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in
   their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the
   desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth.
   Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began
   to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the
   French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in
   1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and
   others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to
   light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art
   have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature,
   written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and
   read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of
   Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in
   other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and
   Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary
   additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Chaldea,
      introduction, chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. Layard,
      Nineveh and its Remains;
      and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon._

      _G. Smith,
      Assyrian Discoveries_

      See, also, ASSYRIA;
      and LIBRARIES, ANCIENT.

NINEVEH, Battle of (A.D. 627).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NINFEO, Treaty of.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

NINIQUIQUILAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

NIPAL
NEPAUL:
   English war with the Ghorkas.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

NIPMUCKS,
NIPNETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675,
      and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.

NISÆAN PLAINS, The.

   The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably
   they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and
   Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now
   considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. …
   The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan,
   whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was
   originally brought."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Media,
      chapter 1, with foot-note._

NISCHANDYIS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

NISHAPOOR:
   Destruction by the Mongols (1221).

      See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

NISIB, Battle of (1839).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

NISIBIS, Sieges of (A. D. 338-350).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

NISIBIS, Theological School of.

      See NESTORIANS.

   ----------NISMES: Start--------

NISMES:
   Origin.

      See VOLCÆ.

NISMES: A. D. 752-759.
   Recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

   ----------NISMES: End--------

NISSA, Siege and battle (1689-1690).

      See HUNGARY; A. D. 1683-1699.

NITIOBRIGES, The.

   These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was
   Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

NIVELLE, Battle of the (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

NIVÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

NIZAM.
   Nizam's dominions.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

NIZZA.

      See NICE.

NO.
NO AMON.

      See THEBES, EGYPT.

NO MAN'S LAND, Africa.

      See GRIQUAS.

{2364}

NO MAN'S LAND, England.

   In the open or common field system which prevailed in early
   England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips,
   wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of
   unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called
   'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the
   case might be."

      _F. Seebohm,
      English Village Community,
      chapter 1._

NO POPERY RIOTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

NOBLES, Roman:
   Origin of the term.

   "When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes
   between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the
   Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the
   name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a
   man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a
   nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a
   curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a
   nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The
   Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician
   nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new
   Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian
   who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true
   conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word
   Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name
   was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

         See, also, ROME: B. C. 146.

NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.

   "At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained
   the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
   by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man
   little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been
   cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is
   given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It
   is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that
   God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and
   undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus
   concluded that the undivided Father of all things united
   himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him
   suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers
   were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century,
   Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the
   capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica,
   attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
   that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and
   holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine
   nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue,
   emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle
   of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
   man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he
   also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."

      _J. L. von Mosheim,
      Historical Commentaries, 3d Century,
      sections 32-33._

NÖFELS,
NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

   Battle of (1799).

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

NOLA, Battle of (B. C. 88).

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

NOMBRE DE DIOS:
   Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

NOMEN,
COGNOMEN,
PRÆNOMEN.

      See GENS.

NOMES.

   A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt
   was divided from very ancient times.

NOMOPHYLAKES.

   In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by
   Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or
   "Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents,
   both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were
   charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was
   taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws.
   They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act
   according to law."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 46._

NOMOTHETÆ, The.

   A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general
   assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing
   laws or enact new ones.

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

NONCONFORMISTS,
DISSENTERS, English:
   First bodies organized.
   Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.-
   Removal of Disabilities.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
      1711-1714; 1827-1828.

NONES.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

NONJURORS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

NOOTKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

NOPH.

      See MEMPHIS.

NÖRDLINGEN,
   Siege and Battle (1634).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

NORE, Mutiny at the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

NOREMBEGA.

      See NORUMBEGA.

   ----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: Start--------

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
   Bombardment and destruction.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
   Pillaged by British marauders.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Abandoned by the United States commandant.
   Destruction of ships and property.
   Possession taken by the Rebels.

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

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).
   Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Evacuated by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) EVACUATION OF NORFOLK.

   ----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: End--------

NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

NORICUM.

      See PANNONIA;
      also, RHÆTIANS.

   ----------NORMANDY: Start--------

NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911.
   Rollo's conquest and occupation.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.

{2365}

NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
   The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.
   The Normans become French.

   The first century which passed after the settlement of the
   Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy
   in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of
   its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced
   order and justice on the new community, as well as to the
   political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword
   [son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943]
   clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of
   Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which
   both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which
   had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their
   settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled
   down the temper and traditions which their people had brought
   from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language
   and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours'
   religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed
   enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were
   threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of
   alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied
   Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will;
   once the German lances were seen from the walls of their
   capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those
   without. The subject population which had been trodden under
   foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent.
   The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the
   Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of
   Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be
   settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds
   of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from
   without the dukes held firm to their course, and their
   stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William
   Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled
   districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The
   work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword.
   As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had
   given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold
   it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the
   Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound
   the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful
   struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the
   northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to
   maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line
   on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread
   of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence
   spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely
   to the French crown."

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 8._

NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.
   Duke William establishes his authority.

   Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by
   his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name
   of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under
   the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his
   bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a
   boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on
   the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to
   lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the
   duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord.
   "It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the
   lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes
   after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it
   will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately,
   and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and
   Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian
   and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before
   William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite
   possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the
   western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in
   spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish
   districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans
   came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy
   in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while
   more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other.
   So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and
   Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin
   and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of
   Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of
   Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. …
   When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at
   Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him
   in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own
   Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted
   whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of
   rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and
   asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King
   Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom
   we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in
   battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's
   first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was
   now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of
   Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its
   character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux.
   William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before
   he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own
   Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long
   King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now
   always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the
   other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the
   King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and
   Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to
   hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great
   addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French
   King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every
   occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine,
   and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled
   over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were
   often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power
   and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time
   before his conquest of England."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Short History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8._

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 2, chapter 4._

{2366}

NORMANDY: A. D. 1066.
   Duke William becomes King of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135.
   Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1096.
   The Crusade of Duke Robert.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205.
   Wrested from England and restored to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1419.
   Conquest by Henry V. of England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

NORMANDY: A. D. 1449.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

NORMANDY: 16th Century.
   Spread of the Reformation.
   Strength of Protestantism.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

   ----------NORMANS: Start--------

NORMANS.
NORTH MEN:
   Name and Origin.

   "The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans,
   according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or
   the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race
   with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots
   identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token
   of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile
   incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the
   territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by
   Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the
   Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them
   and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of
   the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and
   treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become
   children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic
   fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the
   fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable
   thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests,
   were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and
   stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three
   days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway,
   two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers
   of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was
   distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All
   equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary
   submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they
   promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of
   gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as
   their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they
   coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the
   straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them
   the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes
   they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."

      _A. Thierry,
      Conquest of England by the Normans,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      The Early Kings of Norway._

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
   The Vikings and what sent them to sea.

   "No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the
   sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause
   which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was
   that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all
   over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and
   which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by
   land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the
   north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other
   nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds,
   threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered
   force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the
   west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the
   west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came,
   had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which
   happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land
   ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to
   look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to
   support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow
   Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of
   the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after
   another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he
   invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls
   laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have
   thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration
   added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to
   struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the
   brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great
   impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a
   freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader
   by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought
   the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him.
   Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm
   was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and
   thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was
   Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived
   from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay
   moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships;
   the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case,
   occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,'
   and at one time or another in his life almost every man of
   note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking
   life."

      _G. W. Dasent,
      Story of Burnt Njal,
      volume 2, appendix._

   "Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to
   Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations
   reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these
   achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that,
   among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the
   Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians,
   like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and
   Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad.
   … The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and
   their more immediate contact with Germany account for the
   frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."

      _W. Roos,
      The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions
      (English History Review, April, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Laing,
      Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings of Western Christendom,
      chapter 5._

      _P. B. Du Chaillu,
      The Viking Age._

      See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

{2367}

NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
   The island empire of the Vikings.

   We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes
   under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many
   ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide
   the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would
   appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed
   indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in
   tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as
   a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the
   Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as
   Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell
   to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and
   Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the
   Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the
   Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of
   the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their
   settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally
   with their geographical position.
   1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland.
   2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland.
   3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.

   The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as
   early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful
   settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from
   the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In
   the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new
   importance, and their character is changed. Many of those
   driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking
   themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast
   in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages
   seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom,
   Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to
   conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates.
   The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser,
   Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy,
   who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as
   a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. …
   Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D.
   875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of
   Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of
   Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the
   commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of
   Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort
   of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors
   had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from
   the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black
   strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their
   chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire
   had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western
   coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man,
   Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was
   under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar
   (grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin.
   Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on
   England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the
   Danish Northumbria."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 2._

   "Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar]
   the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were
   crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and
   manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was
   then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of
   society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the
   influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were
   established all over the island before the arrival of the
   Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those
   ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople
   and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the
   provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their
   country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the
   remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced
   among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians
   themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion
   of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation,
   fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such
   barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of
   the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The
   principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an
   honourable profession, in the exercise of which these
   islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of
   Europe under heavy contributions."

      _D. Macpherson,
      Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History
      (Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland,
      chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note)._

      See, also,
      IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.

NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
   The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.

   "In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the
   common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain,
   though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the
   attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser
   however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.'
   Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the
   pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark.
   The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as,
   owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the
   ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the
   general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to
   narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      page 68, foot-note._

   Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into
   three periods:
   1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which
      began A. D. 787.
   2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to
      the Peace of Wedmore, 880.
   3. The later period of conquest, within which England was
      governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapters 6 and 12._

NORMANS: A. D. 841.
   First expedition up the Seine.

   In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by
   a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had
   been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was
   commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have
   been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city
   of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to
   touch the tempting country through which they passed, until
   the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.
   Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.
   … Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly
   successful.
{2368}
   Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and
   simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,
   dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete
   their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the
   Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging
   enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates
   from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 9._

NORMANS: A. D. 845-861.
   Repeated ravages in the Seine.
   Paris thrice sacked.

      See PARIS; A. D. 845; and 857-861.

NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.
   The career of Hasting.

   "About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to
   Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the
   citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It
   is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His
   birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been
   the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and
   to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early
   youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others
   he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his
   origin, by the middle of the century he had established his
   title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which
   helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When
   the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again
   put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus
   and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and
   Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time.
   The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the
   Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour
   of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most
   efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled
   from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The
   leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and
   Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the
   destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce
   religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder.
   This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid
   in great measure to the account of the thirty years of
   proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony,
   and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting
   seems to have been filled with a double portion of this
   spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the
   most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was
   probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace
   murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their
   charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his
   exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the
   sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an
   attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his
   followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their
   way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the
   Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of
   Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the
   great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever
   since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is
   said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia
   mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was
   actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he
   had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was
   soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The
   priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city
   taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity
   after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen
   into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the
   sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he
   re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of
   the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or
   rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France
   on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil
   had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in
   sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses
   by the plunder of Provence."

      _T. Hughes,
      Alfred the Great,
      chapter 20._

NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.
   The discovery and settlement of Iceland.
   Development of the Saga literature.

   The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse
   Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of
   the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so
   many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to
   have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold
   island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears.
   "Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen
   the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64),
   'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by
   his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in
   Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one
   should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine
   silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual
   emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth
   century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had
   fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000
   souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins
   who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters
   and proletarians."

      _R. F. Burton,
      Ultima Thule, introduction,
      section 3 (volume 1)._

   "About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a
   step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth,
   and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though
   we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we
   know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure,
   that it could only have been with the common consent of the
   great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local
   Things.

      See THING.

   The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The
   man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family
   long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was
   sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.
   "Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the
   chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need
   of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost
   no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual
   meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,
   but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and
   the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.
{2369}
   It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the
   Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both
   Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the
   establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a
   Commonwealth in Iceland."

      _G. W. Dasent,
      The Story of Burnt Njal,
      introduction (volume 1)._

   "The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at
   the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th
   century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a
   position in the world's history and literature, must be sought
   in the events which took place in Norway at the time when
   Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate
   resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The
   people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the
   flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast
   of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most
   perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set
   out with their families and followers to find a home where
   they might be as free and independent as their fathers had
   been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the
   cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the
   end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of
   the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety
   might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity
   having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000],
   and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be
   found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the
   island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law
   and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common
   property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature
   to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste
   for history gave the literature the direction which it
   afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a
   whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in
   writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the
   Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were
   men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from
   kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods
   themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they
   assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their
   forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste
   for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full
   share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and
   remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports
   from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the
   Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst
   for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as
   courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and
   other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in
   Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of
   visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions
   and circumstances which produced that remarkable development
   of the historical taste with which the people were endowed,
   and made Iceland the home of the saga."

      _F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1._

   "The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of
   writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship,
   says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history
   there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes,
   and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not
   only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but
   were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have
   left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally
   'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude
   nations."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      Preface._

      See, also,
      THINGS.
      THINGVALLA.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
   Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.

   "One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was
   destined to play a real part in history. This was the
   settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is
   Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,
   sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This
   settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need
   hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,
   which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.
   But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony
   among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was
   probably not expected to be more lasting or more important
   than the others. But, while the others soon lost any
   distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,
   it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a
   determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once
   proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,
   but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the
   main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of
   Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.
   We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,
   unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the
   Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I
   therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in
   detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time
   before his final settlement. He is described as having been
   engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain
   for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …
   The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,
   that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other
   chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two
   leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless
   expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf
   charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a
   share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an
   occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we
   have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not
   till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that
   Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic
   reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever
   vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from
   that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls
   of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of
   the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was
   attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,
   the under-garment of the Virgin.
{2370}
   But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had
   no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was
   his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously
   checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,
   his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an
   attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a
   peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]
   was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles
   and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore
   before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for
   which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism
   and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,
   just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part
   of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was
   made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the
   French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of
   the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to
   Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother
   Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now
   ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of
   Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in
   lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was
   its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the
   western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one
   hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well
   defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original
   grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did
   not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the
   noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The
   Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years
   later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not
   won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf
   … had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no
   recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the
   Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.
   The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply
   the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapters 3-5._

      _A. Thierry,
      Norman Conquest of England,
      book 2._

      See, also,
      FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

NORMANS: A. D. 876-984.
   Discovery and settlement of Greenland.

   "The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the
   settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America
   afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of
   Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern
   part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical
   miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the
   time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case
   of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those
   regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland
   sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to
   land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that
   Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the
   west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to
   the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to
   time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man,
   by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land
   in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in
   the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and
   remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end
   of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the
   newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as
   he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed
   with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders
   and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony
   was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in
   the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The
   Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother
   countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it
   finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a
   list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."

      _R. B. Anderson,
      America not Discovered by Columbus,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Crantz,
      History of Greenland,
      book 4, chapter 1._

NORMANS: A. D. 885-886.
   The Great Siege of Paris.

      See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
   The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: 9-10th CENTURIES and A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
   The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.

   "Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces,
   districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring
   will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively
   before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian
   dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two
   crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or
   against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant,
   or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys
   and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme
   and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and
   all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and
   the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling
   as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities,
   the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more
   flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of
   government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all
   equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the
   Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They
   constitute three principal schemes of naval and military
   operations, respectively governed and guided by the great
   rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of
   operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt,
   and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by
   the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine
   and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far
   as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second
   scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and
   Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and
   Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine
   Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the
   countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour,
   frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far
   as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to
   Bourges."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{2371}

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapters 9-15._

NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016.
   The Danish conquest of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011.
   Supposed voyages to America.

      See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.

NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries.
   The breaking up of the Norse island empire.

   "At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century
   the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these
   Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and
   restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About
   this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the
   island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES]
   became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their
   princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of
   England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford
   Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after
   subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys,
   attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast.
   But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans
   [from England] who had just made a settlement there, he
   crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The
   sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original
   owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and
   Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of
   Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these
   dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find
   them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in
   the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the
   Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry.
   After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the
   islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons.
   Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the
   13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King
   of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom
   over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his
   defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander
   III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his
   son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by
   the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of
   Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the
   11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested
   a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland.
   Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other
   quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the
   Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's
   subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the
   independence of the north of Scotland against the southern
   king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the
   female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now
   transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King
   of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed
   over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of
   Norway."

      _A. H. Johnson,
      The Normans in Europe,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063.
   The Northmen in France become French.

      See NORMANDY; A. D. 911-1000; and 1035-1063.

NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.
   Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090;
      and 1081-1194.

NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042.
   The reign of the Danish kings in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071.
   Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.

NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085.
   Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

NORMANS: A. D. 1084.
   The sack and burning of Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

NORMANS: A. D. 1146.
   Ravages in Greece.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

NORMANS: A. D. 1504.
   Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

   ----------NORMANS: End--------

NORTH, Lord, Administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1770, to 1782-1783.

NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

   ----------NORTH CAROLINA: Start--------

NORTH CAROLINA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,
      IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524.
   Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587.
   Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
   The grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663.
   Pioneer and unorganized colonization.

   "An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a
   titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number
   of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir
   Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the
   proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the
   grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and
   the official information received, did not, however, suffice
   to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by
   which possession might be obtained of the neighboring
   territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom
   by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a
   trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and
   traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the
   next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of
   Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and
   established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses
   granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who
   would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration
   from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,
   crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings
   within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were
   mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial
   stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and
   elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the
   Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.
{2372}
   New England enterprise explored the American coast from one
   end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new
   resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North
   Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the
   mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some
   unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and
   dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had
   already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the
   reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists
   abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written
   opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very
   plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some
   wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from
   the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they
   accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a
   settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North
   Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the
   extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the
   north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,
   with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of
   farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their
   way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights
   the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the
   Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the
   Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the
   English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may
   be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists
   in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in
   the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much
   besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies,
      chapter 5._


      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
   The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.
   The organized colonies.

   "On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward,
   Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William,
   Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley
   [Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton,
   and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific
   and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of
   latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant
   embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and
   Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir
   William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited
   the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the
   Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was
   succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that
   made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A
   form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in
   detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,'
   were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the
   Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor
   Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the
   assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return
   to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and,
   was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."

      _J. H. Wheeler,
      Historical Sketches of North Carolina,
      chapter 4._

   "The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not
   include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its
   northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia
   by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an
   unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the
   proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. …
   Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the
   charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the
   administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that
   'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at
   that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31
   miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and
   the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the
   Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough
   with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated
   June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were
   granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one
   prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the
   sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from
   Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old
   county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its
   abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary
   history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others
   similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the
   supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but
   having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the
   gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with
   him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new
   settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it
   contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the
   colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The
   action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its
   abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to
   have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward,
   sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony
   at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South
   Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William
   Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been
   appointed governor of that part of the coast lying
   southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle
   carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat
   comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and
   insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the
   proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had
   such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed
   before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir
   John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had
   acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto
   ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which
   precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his
   command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory
   which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August,
   1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams
   making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all
   the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them
   to be surveyed with accuracy.
{2373}
   On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and
   land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore,
   turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal
   travelled northward; and so the colonists from both
   settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle
   ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the
   first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In
   1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the
   confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient
   for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people,
   with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to
   remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the
   foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses
   were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the
   southern part of the province, and also the port for all
   commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon.
   … We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on
   Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon
   his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions
   were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed
   of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates
   chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose
   advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take
   and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the
   other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the
   power to make laws, but a large share of the executive
   authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this
   constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at
   this period, when the province may be said to have had, for
   the first time, a system of regular government, there was in
   it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of
   the political creed of our whole country, without distinction
   of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a
   voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that
   they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own
   representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were
   contented and happy during the early part of Stephens'
   administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not
   to last. We have now reached a period in our history which
   illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in
   the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the
   proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result
   of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had
   now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent
   project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the
   nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical
   obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely
   reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their
   theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to
   accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare
   'the fundamental constitutions.'"

      _F. L. Hawks,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 2, pages 441-462._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of thee United States,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
   The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,
   and their failure.

   The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury,
   Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the
   rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties
   within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy
   the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in
   that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers,
   the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the
   colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known
   philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest
   expectations were entertained in consequence of his
   co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the
   proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of
   the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing
   the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the
   notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of
   laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was
   devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the
   colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed
   by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one
   of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code
   provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land
   graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by
   the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the
   eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with
   the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The
   tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred
   with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the
   lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was
   rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly
   judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather
   with books than men—with the abstract rather than the
   practical in government and society. And this judgment is
   certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they
   were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of
   the country, or the class of people which subsequently made
   their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic
   slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a
   large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost
   without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme
   was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures
   were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in
   Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the
   first settlers left them generally without the means of
   procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are
   subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a
   foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a
   miserable mockery, or something worse."

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but
   subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against
   the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This
   revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.
   To a colony of which the majority were likely to be
   dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in
   England, where the model became the theme of extravagant
   applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the
   government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of
   Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the
   northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple
   form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,
   and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and
   twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient
   settlements.
{2374}
   The assembly had already met and had framed some important
   laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than
   half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when
   the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its
   promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the
   existing system, which it could not replace. The
   proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,
   superseded the existing government, and the colonists
   resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of
   things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet
   separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary
   changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many
   years.

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the
   dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand
   Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have
   declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted
   by the charter, without regard to the fundamental
   constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection
   of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation
   of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as
   the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect,
   the government went on much as before. Each of the
   proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the
   colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the
   other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the
   council in either province, over which the governor presided
   as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment
   belonged."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

   The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in
   volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in
   volume 10 of several prior editions.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
   Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.
   End of the Proprietary Government.

   In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with
   a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety
   of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him,
   tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office
   and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the
   form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it,
   and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for
   government which was one of the leading characteristics of the
   colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the
   Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern
   province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern
   territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part
   the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as
   'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony
   south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the
   expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet
   with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are
   used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same
   document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at
   establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by
   placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these
   cases provision was made for the appointment of separate
   Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project
   for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first
   event occurred which throws any clear light from without on
   the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary
   disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and
   it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side
   to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter
   lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia
   Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all …
   deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver
   writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and
   thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other
   southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some
   fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we
   find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with
   England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North
   Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a
   surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother
   country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and
   swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any
   care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its
   counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those
   habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia
   and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the
   same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of
   slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and
   meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end.
   The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors,
   then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of
   other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a
   conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North
   Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful
   assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina
   cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the
   ordinary state of a crown colony."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America:
      Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas,
      chapter 12._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710.
   Palatine colonization at New Berne.

      See PALATINES.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.
   Indian rising and massacre of colonists.
   Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
   War with the Spaniards in Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend Duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2375}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
   The insurrection of the Regulators.
   Battle of Alamance.

   Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several
   of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious
   results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the
   middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a
   population generally poor and ignorant. These people
   complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant
   are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive
   fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of
   which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held
   the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the
   collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under
   the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they
   formed associations which not only refused the payment of
   taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers,
   judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even
   proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts.
   The common name of Regulators designated, in the two
   Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and
   having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province
   took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of
   their leaders, who had been elected a member. After
   negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the
   peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers,
   marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators
   assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on
   the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which
   some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number
   taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though
   the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly
   hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had
   taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from
   North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin,
   anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents
   of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and
   sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and
   with such success that they became, in the end, staunch
   supporters of the royal authority."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 29 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _F. X. Martin,
      History of North Carolina,
      chapters 7-8._

      _J. H. Wheeler,
      History of North Carolina,
      chapter 8._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      Battle of the Alamance
      (Revised History of North Carolina)._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlement of Tennessee.
   The Watauga Association.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The Mecklenburg Declaration.

   "It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting
   of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May
   20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence
   of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On
   the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass
   resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that
   time, but not venturing on the field of independency further
   than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force
   till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions
   were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the
   leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can
   be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii,
   619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing
   them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord
   Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper
   Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a
   copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North
   Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these
   resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the
   Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in
   the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these
   resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored
   to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some
   of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in
   Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced
   independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they
   affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first
   printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are
   found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of
   May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few
   phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his
   'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy
   came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819
   copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of
   persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions
   were passed on the 20th."

      _J. Winsor,
      Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, page 256._

   "We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular
   meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where
   discussion was had on the subject of independence, and
   probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at,
   which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st.
   If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary
   of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the
   proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in
   regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It
   was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting,
   destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man,
   fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as
   Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg
   Declaration of Independence.

      _H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 3, appendix 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. A. Graham,
      Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875._

      _F. L. Hawks,
      The Mecklenburg Declaration
      (Revised History of Georgia)._

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The arming of the loyalist Highlanders
   and their defeat at Moore's Creek.
   The first colony vote for independence.

   "North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor
   of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United
   Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,
   and vested the public authority in a provincial council for
   the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and
   county and town committees. A large portion of the people were
   adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland
   emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor
   Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these
   loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might
   be gained to the royal side.
{2376}
   The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South
   Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an
   expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore
   the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir
   Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am
   clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made
   on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be
   well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence
   among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the
   chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic
   devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was
   appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction
   of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled
   about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed
   of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the
   field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry
   Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected
   the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved
   forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the
   militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which
   McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was
   at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was
   under his command: and this place on the 27th of February
   [1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were
   victorious. They captured a great quantity of military
   supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the
   Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers
   circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of
   the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and
   anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people
   elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the
   4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to
   ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The
   subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius
   Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble
   … and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General
   Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies
   in declaring independency and forming foreign
   alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive
   right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of
   appointing delegates in a general representation of the
   colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was
   unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular
   party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of
   independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,
   were in solid array against it. The example was warmly
   welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."

      _R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      _D. L. Swain,
      British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776
      (Revised History of North Carolina)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A: D. 1776 (JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
   Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.
   Independence declared.
   Adoption of State Constitution.
   The war in the North.
   British conquest of Georgia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   Yorktown.
   Peace.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784.
   Revolt of the Tennessee settlements
   against their cession to Congress.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.
   The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.
   Its brief and troubled history.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786.
   Importation of Negroes discouraged.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787~1789.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.
   Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)
   to the United States.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).
   The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.

   "A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed
   to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional
   right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the
   Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the
   Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the
   secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line
   with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of
   Secession December 20, 1860.]

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

   The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in
   his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a
   conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them
   for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also
   recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of
   a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of
   carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January,
   a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided
   that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with
   the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be
   ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state.
   The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th
   of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A
   large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time,
   the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a
   convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The
   majority against it was 662. This majority against a
   convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in
   regard to secession. The true test was the votes received,
   respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former
   received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable
   governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for
   secession. The legislature was called together in extra
   session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another
   election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of
   the month. The election took place accordingly, and the
   delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the
   secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate
   Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further
   obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for
   granted."

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      pages 119-120._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. W. Moore,
      History of North Carolina,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

{2377}

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).
   Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort
   by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Appointment of a Military Governor.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).
   Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
   Confederate capture of Plymouth.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January).
   The capture of Fort Fisher.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
   Sherman's March.
   The Battle of Bentonsville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
   Federal occupation of Wilmington.
   Battle of Kinston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Provisional government under
   President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

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

NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

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

   ----------NORTH CAROLINA: End--------

NORTH DAKOTA:
   Admission to the Union (1889).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

NORTH RIVER, The.

      See SOUTH RIVER.

NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.

   One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th
   century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460.
   The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King
   Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight
   to the north.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.

NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

NORTHMEN.

      See NORMANS.

   ----------NORTHUMBRIA: Start--------

NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.

   The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in
   Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of
   Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes,
   sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending
   from the Humber to the Forth.

      See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.

NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries.
   Lothian joined to Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.

   ----------NORTHUMBRIA: End--------

NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

   "The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the
   Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or
   of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is
   about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the
   area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded
   to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

   The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and
   British Columbia has been formed into four provisional
   districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
   Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and
   legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and
   a Council of five members subject to instructions given by
   Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

   ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
   The Old.

   "This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio,
   and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large
   States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania,
   Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when
   independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign
   territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen
   colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that,
   whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer
   Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest.
   The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally
   stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence.
   It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first
   important conquest during the Revolution itself."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, pages 32-33._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.
   Early French exploration and occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;
      also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.
   Struggle of the French and English for possession.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1758.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
   Possession taken.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
      and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

{2378}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving
   the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.

   "On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a
   proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies,
   namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the
   latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the
   Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and
   'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec
   did not vary materially from those of the present province of
   that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the
   present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of
   Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that
   no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the
   new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the
   omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The
   purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory,
   the region north of the great lakes, and the country between
   the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from
   settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the
   time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.
   The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases
   of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward
   of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the
   West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or
   inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this
   limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such
   settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in
   the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the
   future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,'
   etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the
   Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the
   petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on
   the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the
   president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to
   remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by
   this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,
   immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the
   western extent of settlements to such a distance from the
   sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach
   of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the
   exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was
   conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies
   in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother
   country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital
   objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October,
   1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of
   North America has been to improve and extend the commerce,
   navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear
   to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely
   upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their
   hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature,
   and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that
   branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in
   quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade
   would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the
   cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its
   ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies;
   and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought
   on the American Revolution."

      _W. F. Poole,
      The West, from 1763 to 1783
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 9)._

   "The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the
   construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the
   ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The
   proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's
   domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources
   of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 5._

   The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in

      _Force's
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 1, page 172._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.
   The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
   The territorial claims of Virginia.
   Lord Dunmore's War.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,
   and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.
   Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States
   to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784.
   Jefferson's plan for new States.

   "The condition of the northwestern territory had long been
   under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the
   Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and
   several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it
   was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution
   was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and
   purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to
   lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south
   line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be
   marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,
   and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great
   Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But
   few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,
   over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before
   Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted
   him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands
   were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then
   marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to
   them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population
   which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy
   cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to
   a garden, have never in their lives heard the words
   pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from
   the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the
   Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far
   as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in
   three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls
   of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through
   the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the
   Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between
   this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That
   vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to
   the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of
   hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.
{2379}
   It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long
   tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the
   waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A
   narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,
   and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was
   called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,
   Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is
   now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude
   was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian
   title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the
   shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It
   took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its
   boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the
   two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,
   and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the
   39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which
   waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond
   this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the
   Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of
   Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching
   along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the
   waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,
   and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi
   and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting
   name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It
   lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a
   term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the
   same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,
   a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a
   constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants
   acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise
   a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles
   two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the
   abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced
   that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a
   citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.
   Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the
   first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other
   because it was a public expression of the dread with which our
   ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

  The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the
  same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was
  submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report
  agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference
  was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to
  be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the
  clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying
  citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the
  Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the
  substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the
  government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to
  slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787,
  when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of
  the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the
  United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain: its History,
      pages 148-149._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.
   The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and
   their land purchase.
   The settlement at Marietta.

   "The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of
   the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to
   the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing
   their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was
   sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio
   and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in
   having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee,
   and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the
   lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so
   long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope."
   Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers,
   chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut
   lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio
   Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in
   shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H.
   Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the
   directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the
   Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and
   immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in
   those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no
   powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved
   by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a
   quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th
   of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in
   attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his
   objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions
   which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the
   doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should
   retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which
   were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to
   receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms
   proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally
   signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr.
   Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company.
   Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters,
   smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their
   outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December
   and January, under General Putnam as leader and
   superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny
   River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores
   they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed
   at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar,
   they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named
   Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the
   ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of
   the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first
   and last syllables."

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life, Journals and Correspondence
      of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9._

      _C. M. Walker,
      History of Athens County, Ohio,
      chapter 2._

{2380}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.
   The great Ordinance for its government.
   Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.

   "Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great
   domain, but for a while little progress was made except to
   establish that Congress could divide the territory as might
   seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a
   committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A
   committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the
   number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as
   States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question
   of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done
   till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South
   Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry
   of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the
   government of the Western territory,' and after various
   amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May
   10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was
   at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York,
   commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region
   whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it
   was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features
   of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and
   which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July
   9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a
   majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the
   chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but
   Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted
   Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the
   Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the
   wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any
   business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says
   Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no
   anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of
   the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or
   the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion,
   morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and
   the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
   shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions
   were the New England ideas, which had long before this been
   engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new
   committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions
   except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day
   this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one
   voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and
   that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was
   the promise of the governorship of the territory under the
   ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress,
   to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was
   fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."

      _J. Winsor and E. Channing,
      Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, appendix)._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 15._

      _W. F. Poole,
      Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787
      (North American Review, April, 1876._

      _W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
      Life of Manasseh Cutler,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      _J. P. Dunn, Jr.,
      Indiana,
      chapter 5._

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      pages 149-159._

      _J. A. Barrett,
      Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787
      (University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891)._

      _J. P. Dunn, editor,
      Slavery Petitions
      (Indiana Historical Society,
      volume 2, number 12)._

      See, also,
      EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA.: A. D. 1785-1880.

   The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government
   of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River
   Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":

   "Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled,
   That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary
   government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided
   into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the
   opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the
   authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and
   non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying
   intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their
   children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal
   parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to
   take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among
   them: And where there shall be no children or descendants,
   then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and,
   among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or
   sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them,
   their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be
   a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood;
   saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third
   part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the
   personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower,
   shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of
   the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt
   laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory
   may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and
   sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full
   age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be
   conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed,
   sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in
   whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses,
   provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be
   acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be
   recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and
   registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal
   property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to
   the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the
   Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who
   have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,
   their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to
   the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the
   authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time
   to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall
   continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner
   revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have
   a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the
   exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to
   time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall
   continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he
   shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate
   therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his
   office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and
   laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the
   district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive
   department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and
   proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress:
{2381}
   There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three
   judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a
   common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have
   each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in
   the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall
   continue in force during good behavior. The governor and
   judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the
   district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil,
   as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of
   the district, and report them to Congress from time to time:
   which laws shall be in force in the district until the
   organization of the General Assembly therein, unless
   disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature
   shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
   The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief
   of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the
   same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers
   shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to
   the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall
   appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each
   county or township, as he shall find necessary for the
   preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After
   the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties
   of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be
   regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all
   magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise
   directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary
   government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention
   of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall
   have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution
   of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper
   divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as
   circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district
   in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into
   counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations
   as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there
   shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the
   district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they
   shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect
   representatives from their counties or townships to represent
   them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500
   free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and
   so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants,
   shall the right of representation increase, until the number
   of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number
   and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the
   legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified
   to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen
   of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in
   the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district
   three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his
   own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same:
   Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the
   district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and
   being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two
   years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify
   a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives
   thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in
   case of the death of a representative, or removal from office,
   the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for
   which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve
   for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or
   Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative
   council, and a house of representatives. The legislative
   council shall consist of five members, to continue in office
   five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of
   whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be
   nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As
   soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall
   appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when
   met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the
   district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of
   land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid;
   and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death
   or removal from office, the house of representatives shall
   nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such
   vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the
   term. And every five years, four months at least before the
   expiration of the time of service of the members of council,
   the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as
   aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
   Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of
   the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the
   governor, legislative council, and house of representatives,
   shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good
   government of the district, not repugnant to the principles
   and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And
   all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a
   majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for
   his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be
   of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power
   to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when,
   in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges,
   legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as
   Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or
   affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the
   President of Congress, and all other officers before the
   governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the
   district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall
   have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to
   Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of
   debating but not of voting during this temporary government.
   And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and
   religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these
   republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix
   and establish those principles as the basis of all laws,
   constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall
   be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the
   establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and
   for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an
   equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
   may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby
   ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the
   following articles shall be considered as articles of compact
   between the original States and the people and States in the
   said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by
   common consent, to wit:

{2382}

   Article 1st.
   No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
   manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of
   worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

   Article 2d.
   The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled
   to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial
   by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in
   the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the
   course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,
   unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident
   or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no
   cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall
   be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of
   his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public
   exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to
   take any person's property, or to demand his particular
   services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,
   in the just preservation of rights and property, it is
   understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
   have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner
   whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or
   engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

   Article 3d.
   Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
   government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
   of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good
   faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their
   lands and property shall never be taken from them without
   their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
   they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and
   lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
   justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for
   preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
   and friendship with them.

   Article 4th.
   The said territory, and the States which may be formed
   therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
   the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
   Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
   constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
   the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
   The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
   subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
   contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
   government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
   the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
   thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
   paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
   authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
   districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
   the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
   assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
   shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
   the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
   regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
   in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
   imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
   case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
   residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
   and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
   shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
   inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
   United States, and those of any other States that may be
   admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
   duty, therefor.

   Article 5th.
   There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
   three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
   States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
   and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
   follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
   shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
   rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
   Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
   United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
   to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
   shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
   Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
   due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
   territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
   Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
   line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
   Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
   that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
   far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
   expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
   in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
   and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
   Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
   60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
   by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
   an equal footing with the original States in all respects
   whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
   constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
   and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
   conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
   so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
   the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
   period, and when there may be a less number of free
   inhabitants in the State than 60,000.

   Article 6th.
   There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
   the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
   crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
   Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
   whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
   original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
   conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
   aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
   resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
   of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
   declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
   assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
   and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."

{2383}

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
   Extinguished by divisions.
   Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.

   "Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of
   the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent
   secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal
   constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of
   officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory
   act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of
   officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,
   President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur
   St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and
   Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,
   for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in
   this message designated the country as 'The Western
   Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…
   named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,
   he having been president of the branch society in
   Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,
   1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to
   Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry
   Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress
   in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of
   Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided
   this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.
   Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.
   Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory
   west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky
   River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The
   eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the
   river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,
   November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The
   territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a
   political division after the admission of the State of Ohio
   into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of
   Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed
   by legislation to other political divisions."

      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      pages 159-160._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Burnet,
      Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
      chapters 14-20._

      _C. Atwater,
      History of Ohio, period 2._

      _J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 19-31._

      _W. H. Smith,
      The St. Clair Papers,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

   "The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,
   numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to
   40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been
   the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,
   was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest
   of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark
   and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient
   barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own
   inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to
   the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now
   so maddened against the United States that the first
   imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western
   settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into
   submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the
   small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …
   a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations
   extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major
   Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British
   commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly
   with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,
   by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period
   were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A
   formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon
   by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest
   Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar
   set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a
   force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths
   of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and
   Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a
   disastrous defeat on the Maumee.

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1)._

   "The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati
   [Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually
   at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the
   expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made
   manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became
   bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost
   in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an
   army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The
   command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time
   a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under
   General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash
   country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and
   returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious
   expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so
   fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.
   Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.
   The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a
   shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder
   that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large
   number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his
   2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's
   Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the
   necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The
   militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of
   capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of
   the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While
   waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of
   this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,
   1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the
   first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia
   dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days
   had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his
   strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses
   were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the
   bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the
   artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in
   their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and
   dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,
   over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder
   horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.
   Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every
   settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into
   excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned
   for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A
   committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been
   defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from
   the tragedy of the dark November morning.
{2384}
   Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making
   another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers
   into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one
   of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at
   all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the
   removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The
   British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain
   also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red
   men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of
   this last resort came one of the most popular of the
   Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his
   army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully
   in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of
   St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the
   summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong
   reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish
   between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with
   his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was
   evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of
   Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came
   upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank
   of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the
   Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy
   they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had
   carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here
   directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging
   and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men
   bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead
   and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he
   declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred
   by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus
   ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian
   crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne
   fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty
   by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent
   peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus
   Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,
   ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,
   guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the
   Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of
   immigration."

      _A. Black,
      The Story of Ohio,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. St. Clair,
      Narrative of Campaign._

      _C. W. Butterfield,
      History of the Girtys,
      chapters 23-30._

      _W. H. Smith,
      The St. Clair Papers,
      volume 2._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life of Brant,
      volume 2, chapters 10-12._

NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
   Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
   Battle of Tippecanoe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

   ----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------


NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,
      and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

      See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

NORUMBEGA.

   "Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec
   (Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country
   embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a
   part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the
   mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say
   that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several
   old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers
   and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian
   origin."

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

   On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La
   Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating
   probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The
   name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and
   appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.
   Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map
   is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater
   extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there
   is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which
   trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of
   Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast
   was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da
   Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la
   Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and
   even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward
   Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the
   inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great
   gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered
   by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time
   of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,
   as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.
   Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a
   later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to
   the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or
   'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and
   sometimes to the whole of New England."

      _J. G. Kohl,
      History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection,
      series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283._

   "The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
   and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
   Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
   definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
   1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
   as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
   the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
   described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
   Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
   important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
   period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
   distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
   1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
   substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
   between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
   the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
   embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
   though occasionally the country was known by other names.
{2385}
   Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
   formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
   his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
   Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
   as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
   Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
   searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
   late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
   Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
   of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
   also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
   upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
   find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
   place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
   supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
   of crystal and silver."

      _B. F. De Costa,
      Norumbega and its English Explorers
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Winsor,
      Cartography of North East Coast of America,
      (N. and C. History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 2)._

NORWAY.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

NOSE MONEY.

   A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to
   have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might
   suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are
   thought to have imposed the same there.

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      volume 2, chapter 17._

NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

NOTTOWAYS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

   ----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------

NOVA SCOTIA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.
   Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.
   Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.

      See NORUMBEGA;
      also CANADA: NAMES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
   The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.
   Origin of the name Acadia.

   In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out
   Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,
   Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned
   the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region
   defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
   latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts
   gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …
   This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was
   afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the
   dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause
   of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the
   Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish
   called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock
   Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name
   from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.
   This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'
   'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is
   properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for
   example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in
   'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"

      _F. Parkman,
      Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
      chapter 2, and foot-note._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
   The Port Royal colony revived,
   but destroyed by the English of Virginia.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
   English grant to Sir William Alexander.
   Cession to France.
   Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
   English reconquest and recession to France.

   "In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
   pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
   for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
   1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
   lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
   now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
   Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
   colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
   into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
   baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
   St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
   the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
   years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
   the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
   Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
   appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
   designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
   portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
   d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
   former established himself on the River St. John, where the
   city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
   eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
   La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
   who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
   treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
   way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
   despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
   their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
   dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
   anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
   and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
   altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
   quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
   the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
   able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
   he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
   in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
   successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
   belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
   second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
   to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
   Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
   Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
   here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
   pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
   the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
   year; but it was not until two years later that it was
   ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
{2386}
   In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
   at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
   afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
   warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
   the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
   to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
   and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
   two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
   instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
   by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
   Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
   Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
   was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
   made to the British government; but by the treaty of
   Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
   possession, and the question of title was referred to
   commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
   appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
   territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
   Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
   purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
   possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
   when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
   was done by the French to settle and improve the country."

      _C. C. Smith,
      Acadia
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 4, chapter 4)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
   Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
   Recovery by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.
   Final conquest by the English and change of name.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.
   Relinquished to Great Britain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
   Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
   Their refusal to swear allegiance.
   Hostilities with the Indians.

   "It was evident from the first that the French intended to
   interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as
   possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of
   England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest
   limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the
   treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at
   Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these
   settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht
   to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an
   exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and
   resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful
   French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant
   communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of
   those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making
   the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to
   believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of
   scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and
   hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition
   that they should not take up arms either for the French or
   English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it
   was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may
   have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other
   place, with all their movable effects. But those who are
   willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great
   Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion
   according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the
   laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never
   contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in
   the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all
   times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make
   the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen
   Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.
   Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to
   proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,
   River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King
   George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance
   to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the
   oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that
   they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the
   people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that
   they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it
   would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who
   actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then
   summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the
   oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his
   deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,
   who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in
   the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his
   predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.
   Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold
   in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in
   readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war
   was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to
   France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration
   between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there
   was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.
   Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the
   Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians
   were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in
   Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in
   1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen
   there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French
   of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being
   seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …
   The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the
   progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec
   filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had
   not been always so just in their dealings with them that they
   could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed
   their territorial rights in the lands over which the English
   settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this
   claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory
   to the English. While these questions were in controversy the
   Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not
   tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.
{2387}
   This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of
   Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,
   whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to
   acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to
   the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at
   Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which
   failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a
   war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso
   to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly
   take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as
   they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."
   This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of
   the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious
   event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous
   murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in
   the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was
   concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King
   George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the
   inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of
   allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At
   Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and
   when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George
   II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew
   their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips
   returned to the province and had great success during the next
   year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only
   throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of
   allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not
   bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when
   they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the
   understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them
   from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for
   that was the position they always assumed, but the matter
   seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the
   question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of
   discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."

      _J. Hannay,
      History of Acadia,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      pages 114-121._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;
      and 1745-1748.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
   Futile discussion of boundary questions.
   The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
   The founding of Halifax.
   Hostilities renewed.

   "During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of
   Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments
   were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual
   occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left
   open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as
   they had been before the war; and before the war the entire
   basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.
   Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,
   was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no
   convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.
   Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were
   but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at
   another time in another, and when these names were mentioned
   in treaties they were understood by each party according to
   its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left
   abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the
   continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal
   peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to
   settle the question of the disputed territory, but the
   differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but
   conquest. While the most important question was that of the
   great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were
   devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or
   Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The
   French were determined to restrict the English province to the
   peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent
   a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to
   hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by
   the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the
   mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established
   themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep
   possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to
   French claims, formed the northern boundary of English
   territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule
   in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,
   and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in
   gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had
   grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to
   France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king
   of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,
   outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes
   suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by
   Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of
   English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the
   Government might have friends and influence throughout the
   country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted
   £40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five
   hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from
   the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted
   to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the
   Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.
   Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town
   was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of
   Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In
   July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis
   gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government
   would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required
   of them." They were called upon to take the oath of
   allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the
   privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been
   formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them
   from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,
   indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing
   less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month
   later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand
   signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the
   oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis
   took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for
   instructions."
{2388}
   Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a
   French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting
   the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent
   to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the
   little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their
   southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous
   village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]
   had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance
   to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the
   inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded
   by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind
   the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their
   fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under
   the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other
   parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in
   exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a
   speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a
   large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side
   of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie
   Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of
   fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of
   the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the
   question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any
   results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia
   and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent
   against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000
   troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the
   command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were
   added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the
   command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto
   on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for
   long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.
   "After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.
   Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the
   French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was
   changed to Cumberland."

      _R. Johnson.
      History of the French War,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5)._

      _W. Kingsford,
      History of Canada,
      book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3)._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
   Frustrated naval expedition of the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
   The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.

   "The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova
   Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious
   termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the
   fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the
   army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort
   du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara
   and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident
   that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at
   least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the
   savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the
   English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon
   the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and
   his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled
   to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted
   towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so
   peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who
   had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally
   determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this
   whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not
   unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be
   naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of
   this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the
   New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],
   from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well
   qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as
   he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and
   temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier
   were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;
   which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …
   They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the
   moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to
   labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was
   secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."

      _T. C. Haliburton,
      Account of Nova Scotia,
      volume 1, pages 170-175._

   "Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
   and their families were divided into groups answering to their
   several villages, in order that those of the same village
   might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
   provided that the members of each family should remain
   together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
   readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
   the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
   The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
   … When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
   points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
   standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
   that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
   surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
   province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
   Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
   Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
   lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
   they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
   English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
   longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
   one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
   them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
   escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
   Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
   been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
   Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
   him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
   vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
   were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
   Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
   Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
   where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
   population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
   back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
   unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
   were disappointed in its results.
{2389}
   They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
   disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
   settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
   melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
   to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
   measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
   till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
   in vain."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

   "The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one
   of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will
   attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius
   of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a
   somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the
   victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people
   they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as
   we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the
   picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described
   by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among
   themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were
   wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
   bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at
   peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger
   to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified
   allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.
   But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in
   which it was executed."

      _C. C. Smith,
      The Wars on the Seaboard
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 7)._

   "We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which
   an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an
   extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of
   the New England troops."

      _P. H. Smith,
      Acadia,
      page 216._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Reed,
      The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
      volume 6, pages 283-316)._

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
   Cape Breton added to the government.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
   Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.
   The Family Compact.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
      A. D. 1854-1866.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
   Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
   The Halifax Fishery Award.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed Fishery disputes.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

   ----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------

NOVANTÆ, The.

   A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
   Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1513).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1821).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

NOVARA,
   Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

NOVEMBER FIFTH.

      See Guy FAWKES' DAY.

   ----------NOVGOROD: Start--------

NOVGOROD: Origin.

      See RUSSIA.
      RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.

NOVGOROD: 11th Century.
   Rise of the Commonwealth.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.

NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
   Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.
   In the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

   ----------NOVGOROD: End--------

NOVI, Battle of.

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

NOVIOMAGUS.
   Modern Nimeguen.

      See BATAVIANS.

NOYADES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

NOYON, Treaty of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

NUBIANS, The.

      See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

NUITHONES, The.

   See AVIONES.

   ----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------

NULLIFICATION:
   First assertion of the doctrine
   in the United States of America.

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

NULLIFICATION:
   Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   ----------NULLIFICATION: End--------

NUMANTIAN WAR, The.

   "In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field
   [resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of
   Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the
   Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the
   dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the
   Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a
   precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied
   only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power
   of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the
   consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a
   sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted
   conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate
   would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius
   Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for
   faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his
   hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the
   Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept
   him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;
   Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew
   circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn
   rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the
   fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly
   facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned
   into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to
   leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men
   marched out."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapters 6-7._

      See, also, LUSITANIA;
      and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

{2390}

NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.

   ----------NUMIDIA: Start--------

NUMIDIA: The Country and People.

      See NUMIDIANS.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.
   Alliance with Carthage.
   Subjection to Rome.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
   The Jugurthine War.

   The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the
   second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed
   at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died,
   leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha,
   whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three,
   hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was
   a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to
   him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins
   was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other
   he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to
   Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the
   senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him
   the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner
   out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him
   up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the
   city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he
   captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to
   death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his
   pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious
   doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on
   the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him.
   Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it
   paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial
   officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome,
   under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against
   the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to
   further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious
   against him and he only saved himself from being forced to
   criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a
   tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian
   king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war
   proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an
   honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius,
   the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that
   time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated
   Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly
   escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle
   was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius,
   chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his
   remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in
   Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns
   of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than
   from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who
   had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop
   of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha
   into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C.
   104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally
   thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of
   slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the
   cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with
   the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then
   stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger
   of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 26-29._

      _Sallust,
      Jugurthine War._

NUMIDIA: B. C. 46.
   The kingdom extinguished by Cæsar and annexed to Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

NUMIDIA: A. D. 374-398.
   Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.

      See ROME: A. D. 396-398.

   ----------NUMIDIA: End--------

NUMIDIANS AND MAURI, The.

   "The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the
   ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth
   to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been
   asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word
   Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians
   beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were
   agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their
   Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate
   territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of
   native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of
   Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name
   ('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races.
   Several districts in their possession, especially in the
   modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence
   they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of
   not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the
   residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most
   considerable."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and
   modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri,
   Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong
   ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike
   from the negroes and the Egyptians.

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

      See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
      PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

NUR MAHAL, OR NUR JAHAN, Empress of India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

   ----------NUREMBERG: Start--------

NUREMBERG.

   "Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz,
   in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of
   Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a
   population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived
   from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither
   about the year 451, on being driven from their early
   settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished
   themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which
   abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh
   century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of
   impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until
   the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated
   July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a
   place of considerable importance even at this early period.
   Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the
   Emperor Henry IV."

      _W. J. Wyatt,
      History of Prussia,
      volume 2, page 456._

{2391}

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1417.
   Office of Burgrave bought by the city.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.
   The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1525.
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.
   Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1532.
   Pacification of Charles V. with the Protestants.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.
   Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
   Siege by Wallenstein.
   Battle on the Fürth.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.
   Loss of municipal freedom.
   Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------NUREMBERG: End--------

NUYS, The Siege of

   In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to
   extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to
   the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the
   citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally
   himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed
   Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had
   fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid
   siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the
   contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and
   became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought
   about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the
   beginning of his disasters.

      _C. M. Davies,
      History of Holland,
      part 2, chapter 2._

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

NYANTICS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

NYSTAD, Peace of.
   See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

O.

O. S.
   Old Style.

      See GREGORIAN CALENDAR.

OAK BOYS.

      See. IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

OATES, Titus, and the "Popish Plot."

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

OBELISKS, Egyptian.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

OBERPFALZ.

      See FRANCONIA: THE DUCHY AND THE CIRCLE.

OBES, The.

      See GERUSIA;
      and SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

OBLATES, The.

   "The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles
   Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. …
   Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and
   to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their
   lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties
   committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics
   were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not
   seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 456._

OBNUNTIATIO.

      See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.

OBOLLA.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

OBOLUS.

      See TALENT.

OBOTRITES, The.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

OBRENOVITCH DYNASTY, The.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

OC, Langue d'.

      See LANGUE D'OC.

OCANA, Battle of.

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

OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

OCEAN STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings of.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

OCHLOCRACY.

   This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy,
   where rights were made conditional on no gradations of
   property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that
   only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that
   everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for
   everything."

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

O'CONNELL, Daniel, The political agitations of.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, to 1841-1848.

OCTAETËRIS, The.

      See METON, THE YEAR OF.

OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus),
and the founding of the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: B. C. 44, after Cæsar's death,
      to B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

OCTOBER CLUB, The.

      See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER.

ODAL.

      See ADEL.

ODELSRET.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY, TITLE V., ARTICLE 16.

ODELSTHING.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

ODENATHUS, The rule at Palmyra of.

      See PALMYRA: THE RISE AND THE FALL.

ODEUM AT ATHENS, The.

   "Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the
   Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this,
   that the former was a covered space, in which musical
   performances took place before a less numerous public. The
   roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the
   gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of
   Attica."

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

ODOACER, and the end of the line of Roman Emperors in the West.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476; and 488-526.

ODYSSEY, The.

      See HOMER.

ŒA.

      See LEPTIS MAGNA.

ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.

   A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.
   Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic
   Church.

      See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

{2392}

ŒKIST.

   The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a
   colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 47._

OELAND, Naval battle of (1713).

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

ŒNOË, Battle of.

   A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought
   about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road
   from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the
   Argives and Athenians.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 4._

ŒNOPHYTA, Battle of (B. C. 456).

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ŒNOTRIANS, The.

   "The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth
   century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the
   Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and
   Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across
   the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia
   (Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to
   the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded
   northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the
   Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to
   Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This
   Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek
   colonists found there on their arrival. They were known
   apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels],
   (mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in
   that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali,
   properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them
   names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones
   or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus,
   as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From
   hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been
   imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names
   of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under
   the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the
   same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and
   also that in point of language, manners, and character, they
   were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the
   Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment
   can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the
   Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of
   Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on
   the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and
   Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time
   occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river
   Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

OESTERREICH.

      See AUSTRIA.

ŒTA.

      See THESSALY.

OFEN, Sieges and capture of (1684-1686).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

OFFA, King of Mercia, A. D. 758-794.

OFFA'S DYKE.

   An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth
   century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the
   Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from
   Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain._

OGALALAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

OGAM.

      See OGHAM.

OGDEN TRACT, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.

   "In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be
   found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed
   monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has
   been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little
   result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar
   stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists
   as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient
   dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost
   exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and
   Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
   147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of
   remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham
   monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and
   Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been
   discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham
   inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now
   deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found
   on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of
   a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous
   line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations
   range from one to five, and their values depend upon their
   being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are
   five consonants above, five consonants below, and five
   consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are
   double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by
   oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The
   characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. …
   It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture
   as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I
   honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. …
   I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the
   Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to
   Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the
   south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and
   round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled
   the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines,
   if such preceded them."

      _R. R. Brash,
      Trans. Int. Cong. of Prehistoric Archæology, 1868._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. R. Brash,
      Ogam Inscribed Monuments._

OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

OGULNIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 300.

OGYGIA.

      See IRELAND: THE NAME.

   ----------OHIO: Start--------

OHIO:
   The Name.

   "The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which
   should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,'
   'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful
   River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This,
   doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to
   an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the
   Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the
   termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,'
   etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of
   'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or
   'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination.
   … Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable
   notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete
   'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"

      _H. Hale,
      The Iroquois Book of Rites,
      appendix, note B._

{2393}

OHIO: (Valley):
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1700-1735.
   The beginnings of French Occupation.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754.
   The first movements of the struggle
   of French and English for possession.

   "The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary
   development of interest in the Western country. The
   Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to
   the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains
   separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men
   were ready to overleap the province of New York and take
   possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English
   colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been
   long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the
   Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of
   English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at
   'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha.
   The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of
   Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by
   Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same
   year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent
   Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was
   formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands,
   and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians.
   It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a
   new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional
   grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be
   located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and
   it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from
   London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran
   woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern
   side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft
   summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the
   Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level
   land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the
   courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the
   strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions,
   Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of
   which we have any report. The next year he made a similar
   exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the
   Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to
   the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that
   time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the
   savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and
   commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made
   trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town
   of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a
   great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence
   of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the
   colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to
   obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the
   Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long
   claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland
   Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many
   years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to
   gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the
   Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of
   King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684];
   in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England
   [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by
   his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their
   heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the
   French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In
   1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies
   of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to
   Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia
   a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the
   Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA:
   A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in
   subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later
   negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It
   gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West;
   and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to
   the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. …
   There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the
   colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all
   working together to effect a common purpose, The royal
   governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions
   between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of
   colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies
   was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the
   Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to
   pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept
   everything into the Westward current. In the years following
   the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle.
   Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended
   what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into
   the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages,
   to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the
   King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways
   short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville
   crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the
   easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern
   streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the
   Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned
   by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the
   governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English
   traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well
   disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the
   two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who
   succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events.
   He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to
   act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year
   1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still
   hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake
   Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern
   branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless
   recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man
   to recall it.
{2394}
   This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and
   French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the
   second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany
   River."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 2._

      _B. Fernow
      The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

      _O. H. Marshall,
      De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749
      (Historical Writings, pages 237-274)._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 1-10._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754.
   The opening battle.
   Washington's first campaign.

   The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put
   them during high water in easy communication by boat with the
   Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and
   where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition
   would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened
   the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all
   he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of
   his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn
   Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor
   of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of
   December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of
   Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort.
   The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was
   George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia
   militia. Their business was to inform the French commander
   that he was building forts on English territory, and that he
   would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington
   tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his
   reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while
   Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec.
   It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached
   Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.
   The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the
   Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to
   build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly,
   forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted
   £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a
   committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting
   the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in
   Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate
   helper which it might, from its position, have become.
   Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains
   and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger
   French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the
   English retired. The French immediately began the erection of
   Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of
   Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with
   tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to
   support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel,
   with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a
   portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's
   Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men
   to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had
   been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort,
   marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who,
   from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called
   Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip
   to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked
   two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party
   were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join
   Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and
   found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader,
   Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were
   taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for
   English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne,
   and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to
   retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's
   attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the
   crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence
   on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville
   had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was
   intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise,
   this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The
   English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for
   reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some
   entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from
   Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and
   Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found
   himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an
   independent company from South Carolina. Washington again
   advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he
   sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of
   regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of
   the French, the English leader again fell back to Great
   Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of
   July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was
   now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy
   day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the
   combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's
   accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched
   out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his
   weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their
   backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now
   waved."

      _J. Winsor,
      The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapters 7-12._

      _H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 10-62._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The French possess the West and
   devastate the English frontiers.

   "Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous
   measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A
   campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,
   and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.
   The execution of this great design was intrusted to General
   Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all
   resistance.
{2395}
   Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …
   He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it
   was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a
   sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but
   he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the
   pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than
   strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had
   found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.
   The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not
   deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such
   accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his
   staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,
   gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at
   Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such
   reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.
   Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great
   centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had
   been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by
   the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and
   Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form
   the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the
   circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt
   that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself
   before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his
   shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly
   take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long
   slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be
   cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.
   Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no
   further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and
   carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was
   required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly
   forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a
   day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,
   to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the
   20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was
   near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was
   intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to
   assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused
   to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy
   might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet
   wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both
   sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A
   murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not
   unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves
   behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,
   clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of
   battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and
   lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot
   down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;
   then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,
   vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off
   the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never
   got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the
   established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he
   murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke
   again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed
   and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about
   one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England
   and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

      _R. Mackenzie,
      America: a history,
      book 2, chapter 3._

   "The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling.
   The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. …
   From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into
   the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay
   exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red
   man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon
   fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in
   the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put
   the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless
   settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he
   writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in
   the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far,
   we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the
   Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.
   The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day
   of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went
   on."

      _T. J. Chapman,
      The French in the Allegheny Valley,
      pages 71-73._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      volume 1, chapters 7 and 10._

      _W. Sargent,
      History of Braddock's Expedition
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5)._

      _N. B. Craig,
      The Olden Time,
      volume 1, pages 64-133._

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.
   Retirement of the French.
   Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
   Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
   The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.
   Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.
   The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.
   The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

      See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
   The territorial claims of Virginia.
   The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

   "On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had
   planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west
   of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the
   war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both
   reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until
   they did so there could be within its borders no chance of
   race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike,
   the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the
   tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision
   was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had
   wronged one another for a generation, and their interests
   were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the
   greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by
   Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore.
{2396}
   … The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke
   out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known
   by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her
   charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South
   Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously
   granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay
   within these lines, provided she could win it from the
   Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been
   made with the like large liberality, and it was found that
   they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence
   was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast,
   where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of
   Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and
   indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the
   south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect
   was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing
   about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia.
   The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania,
   especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and,
   in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein.
   Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian
   claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians
   not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land,
   but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the
   Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it
   was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in
   Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and
   lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from
   Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so
   far from being identical that they were usually diametrically
   opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace
   with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's
   campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty
   of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the
   tendency of the whites to encroach on the great
   hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the
   Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort
   Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while
   it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the
   northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly
   have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what
   they chose with any land that could be reached by their war
   parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own
   against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually
   more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so
   frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. …
   The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the
   outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad,
   and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the
   various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring
   of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The
   borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not
   inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell
   on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the
   country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which
   was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and
   authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland
   borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by
   ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were
   engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the
   camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers
   were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan
   was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the
   bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the
   outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of
   broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was
   greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and
   frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having;
   they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved
   him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to
   his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward
   Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling
   a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were
   preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians,
   and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned
   their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people
   did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of
   April a small party of men, women, and children, including
   almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river
   to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type],
   as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum
   to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The
   whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly
   drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated
   criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At
   once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded
   themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres,
   attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior.
   … Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable
   horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only
   till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the
   summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led
   personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio,
   accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division,
   composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew
   Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there,
   at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the
   Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a
   great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war.
   This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and
   sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most
   closely contested of any battle ever fought with the
   northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over
   a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in
   numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the
   northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the
   Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the
   settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West.
   Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely
   that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have
   found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany
   Mountains."
{2397}
   For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs
   Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent,
   Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a
   messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this
   messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he
   suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its
   place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of
   which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down
   in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of
   this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but
   apparently with no good ground.

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapters 8-9.

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 5._

      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      page 112._

      _V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 9._

      _J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),
      The Rear-guard of the Revolution,
      chapter 4._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.
   Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia
   General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky
   District of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.
   Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and
   Connecticut.
   Their cession to the United States,
   except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,
   Saratoga and Pelisipia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788.
   The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers
   and their settlement at Marietta.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.
   Western Reserve of Connecticut.
   Founding of Cleveland.

   In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western
   territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED
   STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D.
   1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract
   "bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the
   international line, east by the western boundary of
   Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line
   parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120
   miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the
   Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This
   territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came
   to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western
   Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly
   quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns
   who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into
   the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or
   their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their
   heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the
   western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. …
   The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the
   aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the
   soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as
   'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.'
   In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in
   1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the
   Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In
   May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part
   of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract
   was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and
   the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more
   than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds
   of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of
   the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some
   to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying
   their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the
   greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head.
   September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and
   association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land
   Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is
   called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the
   company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent,
   General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the
   Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always
   been white men on the site of the city that takes its name
   from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city
   was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its
   first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a
   heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 19, with foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Whittlesey,
      Early History of Cleveland,
      page 145, and after._

      _H. Rice,
      Pioneers of the Western Reserve,
      chapters 6-7._

      _R. King,
      Ohio,
      chapters 7-8._

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788.
   The founding of Cincinnati.

      See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.
   Indian war.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.
   The Greenville Treaty.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802.
   Organized as a separate Territory
   and admitted to the Union as a State.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

OHIO: A. D. 1835.
   Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.

OHIO: A. D. 1863.
   John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

   ----------OHIO: End--------

OHOD, Battle of.

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

OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS;
      also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

OKLAHOMA, The opening of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

OL., OR OLYMP.

      See OLYMPIADS.

OLAF II.,
   King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.

   Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-

{2398}

   1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.

   Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.

   Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.

   Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.

   Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.

OLBIA.

      See BORYSTHENES.

OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

OLD COLONY, The.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

OLD DOMINION, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

OLD IRONSIDES.

   This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most
   famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with
   Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.

OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.

      See ASSASSINS.

OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

   ----------OLD SARUM: Start--------

OLD SARUM:
   Origin.

      See SORBIODUNUM.

OLD SARUM:
   A Rotten Borough.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

   ----------OLD SARUM: End--------

OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

OLD STYLE.

      See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

OLERON, The Laws of.

   "The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island
   adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to
   Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had
   occasion to mention them, have been able to find any
   contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory
   warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of
   forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c.
   copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more
   immediately from those of Barcelona."

      _D. Macpherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 1, page 358._

OLIGARCHY.

      See ARISTOCRACY.

OLISIPO.

   The ancient name of Lisbon.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

OLIVETANS, The.

   "The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount
   Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a
   distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in
   gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In
   company with a few companions, he established himself in a
   solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation
   of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the
   latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 3, page 149._

OLLAMHS.

   The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.

OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

OLNEY, Treaty of.

   A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut,
   dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The
   conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

OLPÆ, Battle of.

   A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the
   Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general
   Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the
   shore of the Ambracian gulf.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2._

OLUSTEE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.

OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.

   "The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having
   originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth
   year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and
   celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted
   in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and
   consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of
   Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the
   first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the
   olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer
   solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be
   understood that it corresponds only with the six last months
   of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was
   luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which
   varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted
   of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently
   contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The
   computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in
   the year of Christ 440."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      pages 1-2._

OLYMPIC GAMES.

   "The character of a national institution, which the
   Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more
   truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though
   celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any
   tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their
   Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that
   which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the
   Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and,
   from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name
   of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which
   intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The
   origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity,
   partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the
   Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though,
   however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to
   magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little
   attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times,
   Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly
   probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which
   afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated
   in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as
   a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public
   buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for
   two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never
   completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her
   rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of
   the games.
{2399}
   … It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first
   either consulted or expected to take any share in the
   festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain
   tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it
   gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till
   it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was
   proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop
   to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period
   sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety.
   During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course
   regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it
   without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the
   festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only
   from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies
   in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not
   brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private
   interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations
   which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity,
   and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The
   immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various
   trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were
   multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying
   bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses
   and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and
   boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were
   combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The
   equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed
   chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and
   princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations
   of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the
   poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in
   public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable
   prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal;
   but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves
   of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only
   meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly
   the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a
   multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of
   the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world.
   … The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called
   at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the
   victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by
   themselves or their families, or at the expense of their
   fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful
   event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a
   triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were
   commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his
   country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on
   such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it
   happened that sports, not essentially different from those of
   our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture,
   and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. …
   Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement,
   and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games
   might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar
   exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of
   a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and
   humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they
   could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a
   Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous
   ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better
   than barbarous shows."

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

OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.

   The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun
   at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican
   Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated
   with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched
   until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman
   architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still
   unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and
   completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations
   were laid.

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      volume 1, appendix 10._

OLYMPUS.

   The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of
   mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which
   impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which
   seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that
   terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and
   forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its
   elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and
   all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar
   grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in
   Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and
   in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the
   island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a
   range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

      See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

   ----------OLYNTHUS: Start--------

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379.
   The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348.
   War with Philip of Macedon.
   Destruction of the city.

      See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

   ----------OLYNTHUS: End--------

OMAGUAS, The.

      See EL DORADO.

OMAHAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY,
      and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OMAR I.,
   Caliph, A. D. 634-643.

   Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.

OMER, OR GOMER, The.

      See EPHAH.

OMMIADES,
OMEYYADES, The.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
      A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.

OMNIBUS BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

ON.

   "A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000
   years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of
   the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing
   else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned
   university which were the former glories of the place. … The
   university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished
   when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city
   of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of
   the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule,
   that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician
   studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An,
   the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 9._

{2400}

   The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was
   another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but
   Hermonthis by the Greeks.

ONEIDAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603;
      and 1607-1611.

ONONDAGAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

ONTARIO:
   The Name.

      See OHIO: THE NAME.

ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

ONTARIO, The province.

   The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada,
   received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the
   Dominion of Canada was formed.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.

OODEYPOOR.

      See RAJPOOTS.

OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

OPHIR, Land of.

   The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the
   Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent
   historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion
   reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the
   true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the
   mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of
   Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original
   Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern
   Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

OPIUM WAR, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

   ----------OPORTO: Start--------

OPORTO: Early history.
   Its name given to Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OPORTO: A. D. 1832.
   Siege by Dom Miguel.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

   ----------OPORTO: End--------

OPPIAN LAW, The.

   A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century,
   B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or
   more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the
   use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or
   town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 16._

OPPIDUM.

   Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place,
   was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking
   of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a
   "stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where
   they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an
   invasion."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 19, note E (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar,
      Gallic War,
      book 5, chapter 21._

OPTIMATES.

   "New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to
   say when they were first used. We may probably refer the
   origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One
   party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of
   the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by
   the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it
   to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were
   the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue,
   and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their
   interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 20._

      See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

   "Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there
   were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable
   without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from
   his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of
   leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for
   individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the
   Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the
   most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos,
   the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most
   important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near
   Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic
   office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the
   Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water:
   here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of
   Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of
   soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes
   were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the
   Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the
   oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated
   seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a
   series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which
   this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the
   lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles,
   but of the whole nation. … With all the more important
   sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial
   administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd
   management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by
   advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual
   revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they
   were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons
   as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as
   wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the
   sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of
   the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The
   oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of
   public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the
   authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of
   mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of
   personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as
   through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was
   possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an
   influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of
   colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and
   with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The
   oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not
   only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they
   were also its memory."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 4._

{2401}

   "The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by
   some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of
   such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic
   region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might
   be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly
   real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the
   Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an
   exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed
   the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of
   the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary
   was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous
   temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having
   happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be
   eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod,
   placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      chapter 2, lecture 9._

   ----------ORAN: Start--------

ORAN: A. D. 1505.
   Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

ORAN: A. D. 1563.
   Siege, and repulse of the Moors.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:

   ----------ORAN: End--------

ORANGE, The Prince of:
   Assassination.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.

ORANGE, The Principality.

   "The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of
   which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length
   and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering
   upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone;
   and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous
   Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end
   of the 9th century. …"

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.

   "In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of
   one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction,
   sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great
   Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of
   the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald
   IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to
   Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in
   marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux.
   These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary,
   with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386;
   and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the
   brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services
   rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more
   particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind
   him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had
   the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one
   only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French
   court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby
   the principality passed to that house which was made most
   illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent,
   Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of
   Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the
   principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of
   Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

   On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited
   to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti;
   but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under
   the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession
   of the domain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

      _J. Breval,
      History of the House of Nassau._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Orange
      (Historical Essays, volume 4)._

      See, also, NASSAU.

ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.

      See ARAUSIO.

ORANGE FREE STATE.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

ORARIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

ORATORY, Congregation of the.

      See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.

ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

ORCHA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.

ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

   "In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was
   designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to
   limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and
   as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the
   consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much
   might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. …
   The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink.
   By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation
   was extended over the whole of Italy."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._

ORCHOMENOS.

      See MINYI, THE.

ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.

      See HERCYNIAN.

ORDAINERS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDEAL, The.

   "During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine
   interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost
   any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,
   could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early
   as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple
   purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.
   Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the
   accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,
   and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had
   sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial
   refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the
   evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut
   material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the
   principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained
   were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or
   through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of
   cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the
   cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in
   cases of murder.
{2402}
   Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous
   interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some
   depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;
   while others, again, derived their power from the influence
   exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied
   with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling
   water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'
   'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the
   application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a
   mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling
   point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find
   a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter
   portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in
   trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the
   elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the
   triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ
   frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a
   miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of
   things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the
   superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive
   into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

      _H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.

ORDERS, Monastic.

      See
      AUSTIN CANONS;
      BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
      CAPUCHINS;
      CARMELITE FRIARS;
      CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
      CISTERCIAN ORDER;
      CLAIRVAUX;
      CLUGNY;
      MENDICANT ORDERS;
      RECOLLECTS;
      SERVITES;
      THEATINES;
      TRAPPISTS.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

      See KNIGHTHOOD.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ORDINANCES OF 1311.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDOÑO I.,
   King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.

   Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.

   Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.

ORDOVICES, The.
   One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

   ----------OREGON: Start--------

OREGON:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY,
      and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

OREGON: A. D: 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

OREGON: A. D. 1805.
   Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
   The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

   "The territory along the Pacific coast lying between
   California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it
   was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for
   some time between the United States and Great Britain. After
   some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the
   line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's
   possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California
   gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d
   parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading
   posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically
   asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an
   absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of
   hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted
   that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian
   possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the
   British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the
   joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as
   neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at
   the time at all understood the value of the possession, then
   entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had
   remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built
   great trading stations, and used the whole country in the
   interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of
   some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this
   line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even
   prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of
   the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. …
   The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge
   caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the
   frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their
   children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles
   on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great
   canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of
   the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound
   their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored
   by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every
   kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of
   hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great
   water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia.
   When American settlers were once in actual possession of the
   disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great
   Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration
   did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any
   aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land,
   as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given
   England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the
   other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if
   by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were
   too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions.
   Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the
   settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and
   additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by
   a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful
   attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the
   Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the
   termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be
   given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was
   not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men
   went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with
   the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the
   British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the
   British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the
   Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four
   forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to
   insist upon this campaign boundary.
{2403}
   To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent;
   it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things
   should be kept as they were until a fairly large American
   population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus
   put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else.
   Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however
   well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the
   timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally
   fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a
   quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like
   England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try
   for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's
   cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference,
   had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in
   the United States, that they in turn were delighted …;
   accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the
   Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered
   compromise."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      Life of Thomas H. Benton,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159._

      _Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other countries (edition of 1889),
      page 438._

      _W. Barrows,
      Oregon._

OREGON: A. D. 1859.
   Admission into the Union, with a constitution
   excluding free people of color.

   "The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to
   the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that
   afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a
   constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though
   the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly
   imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of
   the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were
   seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of
   color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable
   that the reason why they excluded slavery from the
   constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for
   admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens
   reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the
   admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by
   Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting
   against its admission with a constitution so discriminating
   against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but
   the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103
   in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapter 49._

   ----------OREGON: End--------

OREJONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).

      See AMAZONS RIVER.

ORESTÆ, The.

      See MACEDONIA.

ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
      ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORIFLAMME, The.

   "The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St.
   Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as
   'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any
   military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown
   effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was
   supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis
   the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities,
   on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square
   Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower
   edge cut into three swallow-tails."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 3, foot-note._

   "The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed
   on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a
   gilt spear."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note._

ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

ORISKANY, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries.
   The Norse Jarls.

      See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

ORLEANISTS.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.

   ----------ORLEANS, The House of: Start--------

ORLEANS, The House of:
   Origin.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447.
   Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

   ----------ORLEANS, The House of: End--------

   ----------ORLEANS, The City: Start--------

ORLEANS, The City:
   Origin and name.

   "The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards,
   protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul,
   and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point
   by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had
   taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror
   of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

      See, also, GENABUM.

ORLEANS, The City:
   Early history.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451.
   Siege by Attila.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752.
   A Merovingian capital.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429.
   Deliverance by Joan of Arc.

   In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford,
   having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were
   masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The
   city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was
   still held by the French, and its reduction was determined
   upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of
   vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the
   hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc,
   known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the
   confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They
   raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in
   France from that day.

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles,
      book 2, chapters 52-60._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.
   Recovered by the French.
   Again lost.
   Repeated battles.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.

   ----------ORLEANS, The City: End--------

ORLEANS, The Territory of.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.

ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.

      See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

{2404}

OROPUS, Naval Battle at.

   The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans
   in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which
   they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous
   in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 8, section 95._

ORPHANS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.

      See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.

      See SICYON.

ORTHES, Battle of (1814).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
      also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
      and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORTOSPANA.

   The ancient name of the city of Cabul.

ORTYGIA.

      See SYRACUSE.

OSAGES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OSCANS, The.

   "The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread
   over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium
   belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave
   name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the
   Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a
   late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain
   which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section 2_.

      See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

OSCAR I.,
   King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.

   Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.

OSI, The.

      See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.

OSISMI, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

OSMAN.
OSMANLI.

      See OTHMAN.

OSMANLIS.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648.
   Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

OSRHOËNE,
OSROËNE.

   A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of
   Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears
   to have acquired its name and some little importance during
   the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne
   who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at
   Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman
   province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is
   believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the
   first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was
   a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under
   dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted
   for its schools of theology.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 8 and 47._

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World,
      volume 3 (American edition),
      page 151._

OSSA AND PELION.

      See THESSALY.

   ----------OSTEND: Start--------

OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

OSTEND: A. D. 1706.
   Besieged and reduced by the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731.
   The obnoxious Company.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.

OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Taken by the French, and restored.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

   ----------OSTEND: End--------

OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

OSTIA.

   Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber,
   was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent
   existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the
   maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be
   impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and
   artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius,
   Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They
   were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In
   the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially
   restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The
   ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two
   miles from the sea shore.

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14._

OSTMEN.

      See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).

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

OSTRACISM.

   "The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons
   who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an
   end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and
   thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For
   this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under
   his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by
   potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were
   themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote
   remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For
   such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary
   discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was
   required. The honour and property of the exile remained
   untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a
   term of ten years."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in
   the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the
   people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not.
   Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose
   the proposal. The former they could only do by designating
   particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom,
   or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition
   to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and
   anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the
   danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the
   people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a
   day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day
   the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was
   erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is
   probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ.
   Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person
   he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. …
   At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the
   hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the
   nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted
   one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least
   six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within
   ten days at latest."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 3._

{2405}

OSTROGOTHS.

      See GOTHS.

OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

OSTROVNO, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.

   ----------OSWEGO: Start--------

OSWEGO: A. D. 1722.
   Fort built by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1755.
   English position strengthened.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

OSWEGO: A. D. 1756.
   The three forts taken by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1759.
   Reoccupied by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.
   Retained by the English after peace with the United States.
   Final surrender.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.

   ----------OSWEGO: End--------

OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.

OTADENI,
OTTEDENI, The.

   One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the
   Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were
   the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the
   "Attacotti."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume l._

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

OTFORD, Battle of.

   Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the
   Danish claimant of the English crown.

OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.

   Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or
   Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

   Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.

   Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.

OTHO,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

   Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.

   Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),
   King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;
   King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

   Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),
   King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

   Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;
   King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

   Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.

OTHRYS.

      See THESSALY.

OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

OTOES,
OTTOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OTOMIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.

OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

OTTAWA, Canada:
   The founding of the City.

   "In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the
   Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful
   city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers,
   came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to
   connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great
   lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route
   up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship
   canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made
   his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by
   eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River.
   'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the
   centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a
   large town."

      _W. P. Greswell,
      History of the Dominion of Canada,
      page 168._

OTTAWAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS;
      also PONTIAC'S WAR.

OTTERBURN, Battle of.

   This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a
   small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas
   and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry
   Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack
   on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly
   beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell
   mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of
   knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of
   the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3,
   chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the
   famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the
   Cheviot."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

OTTIMATI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

OTTO.

      See OTHO.

OTTOCAR,
OTOKAR,
   King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

OTUMBA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

OTZAKOF:
   Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants
   by the Russians (1788).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

OUAR KHOUNI, The.

      See AVARS.

   ----------OUDE: Start--------

OUDE, OR OUDH.

   "Before the British settler had established himself on the
   peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire.
   When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion
   of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of
   the servant was turned against the master, and little by
   little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding
   only an official, though an hereditary title, he still
   acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had
   shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of
   Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of
   British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not
   necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable
   in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in
   the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the
   Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money.
{2406}
   But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of
   soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient
   for all the external and internal requirements of the State;
   and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military
   skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British
   battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system,
   one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we
   established a Double Government of the worst kind. The
   Political and Military government was in the hands of the
   Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories
   still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in
   and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern
   Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. …
   Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse
   disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part
   of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it
   was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain.
   Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John
   Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of
   a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord
   Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was
   a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate
   vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The
   condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because
   its government was bad and its people were wretched, but
   because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to
   our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and
   destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for
   good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it
   was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and
   irregularly paid native troops in the service of the
   Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him
   and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that
   British troops should occupy their place. … The additional
   burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a
   million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources
   had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy,
   declared his inability to meet any further demands on his
   treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it
   was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he
   could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be
   ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of
   the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding
   the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British
   troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen
   submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty
   was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half
   of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue,
   passed under the administration of the British Government.
   Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two
   Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his
   reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be
   carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the
   prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the
   lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at
   the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity
   to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.'
   But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of
   these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our
   British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of
   our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for
   themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from
   worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one
   Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but
   still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness,
   and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were,
   doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that
   they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of
   war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better
   still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the
   Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of
   Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed
   by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war,
   Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his
   great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time;
   and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to
   bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times
   were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed
   at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of
   country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by
   the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer,
   to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded
   and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British
   favour and affection."

      _J. W. Kaye,
      History of the Sepoy War in India,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of
   Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then
   remaining territories, such a system of administration as
   should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to
   the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and
   always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel
   of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had
   been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate
   with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt
   that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.
   The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar
   beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the
   'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true
   picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges
   against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …
   Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop
   Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and
   with their ears full of the current English talk about its
   miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a
   manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,
   however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,
   complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder
   and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and
   in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the
   middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"
   between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part
   with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel
   Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow
   were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were
   openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new
   disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.
{2407}
   The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high
   repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were
   ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and
   riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.
   For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue
   Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield
   under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,
   Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to
   have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this
   step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment
   of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been
   warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had
   declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his
   country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to
   be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the
   Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,
   1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of
   Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his
   palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles
   of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,
   yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by
   officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of
   surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

      _J. M. Ludlow,
      British India,
      part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 25 (volume 2)._

      _Sir W. W. Hunter,
      The Marquess of Dalhousie,
      chapter 8._

      _W. M. Torrens,
      Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
      chapter 26._

OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765.
   English war with the Nawab.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

   ----------OUDE: End--------

OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

   ----------OUDENARDE: Start--------

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659.
   Taken by the French and restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

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

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679.
   Restored to Spain.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706.
   Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708.
   Marlborough's victory.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Taken by the French, and restored.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

   ----------OUDENARDE: End--------

OUDH.

      See OUDE.

OUIARS,
OUIGOURS, The.

      See AVARS.

OUMAS,
HUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.

OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.

   This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of
   Aragon, in 1317.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      volume 4, page 238 (American edition)._

OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

OVATION, The Roman.

      See TRIUMPH.

OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

OVILIA.

      See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

OXFORD, Provisions of.

   A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the
   English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The
   king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it,
   and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special
   grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances
   called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced
   after some trouble in October 1259."

      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      page 190._

   The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six
   years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by
   the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both
   sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the
   Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
   France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled
   them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the
   award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England in the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Select Charters,
      part 6._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.

   "Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in
   the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when
   thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;
   and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,
   sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or
   Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But
   the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than
   that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place
   on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors
   had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church
   of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to
   establish her essential identity with the Church of the
   Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place
   her for the first time since the Reformation in her true
   position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …
   Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of
   doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.
   Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed
   to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness
   and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine
   Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of
   the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.
   The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The
   sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the
   power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.
{2408}
   Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.
   … They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular
   Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.
   They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the
   Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and
   Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and
   Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness
   of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under
   the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive
   creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more
   opposite."

      _H. O. Wakeman,
      History of Religion in England,
      chapter 11._

   "The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to
   establish first that the authority of the primitive Church
   resided in the Church of England, and second, that the
   doctrines of the English Church were really identical with
   those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians'
   second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the
   Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion
   [1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the
   articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the
   doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be
   subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and
   doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have
   made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot,
   Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author
   to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular
   dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to
   accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove
   that authority resided in the English Church, and authority,
   in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his
   interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman
   resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but
   he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the
   Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The
   bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the
   author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured
   to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against
   him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance
   in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the
   attack was made, he had regarded his own position with
   dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841,
   a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised
   authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with
   Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an
   abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church
   further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see
   was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a
   few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been
   reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew
   from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into
   communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for
   want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the
   control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 21 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Newman,
      History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua)._

      _J. H. Newman,
      Letters and Correspondence to 1845._

      _R. W. Church,
      The Oxford Movement._

      _W. Palmer,
      Narrative of Events Connected with
      the Tracts for the Times._

      _T. Mozley,
      Reminiscences._

      _Sir J. T. Coleridge,
      Life of John Keble._

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.

OXGANG.

      See BOVATE.

OXUS, The.

   Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.

P.

PACAGUARA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACAMORA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACHA.

      See BEY.

PACIFIC OCEAN:
   Its Discovery and its Name.

   The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean
   was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"
   on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).
   "It was not for some years after this discovery that the name
   Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long
   time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it
   retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it
   lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early
   maps is here significant. All along from this time to the
   middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was
   labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the
   Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'
   Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in
   contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or
   the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was
   then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by
   that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as
   does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in
   1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography
   of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar
   Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'
   Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,
   1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,
   off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,
   both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of
   the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,
   'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';
   De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del
   Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'
   and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or
   Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,
   is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the
   Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos
   Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of
   Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are
   represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.
{2409}
   The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway
   between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the
   words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the
   equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.
   Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of
   water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of
   Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero
   call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find
   that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,
   in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare
   pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central
   America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of
   Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569
   plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and
   in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map
   of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the
   general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,
   the words being in large letters extending across the ocean
   opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is
   'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a
   narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,
   His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare
   Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note._

PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PADISCHAH.

      See BEY; also CRAL.

   ----------PADUA: Start--------

PADUA: Origin.

      See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PADUA: A. D. 452.
   Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      also VENICE: A. D. 452.

PADUA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.
   The Crusade against him.
   Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.
   Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.
   Recovery from his successor.
   The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

PADUA: A. D. 1388.
   Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PADUA: A. D. 1402.
   Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1405.
   Added to the dominion of Venice.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.
   In the War of the League of Cambrai.
   Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------PADUA: End--------

PADUCAH: Repulse of Forrest.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

PADUS, The.

   The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans.
   Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts,
   they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern
   part Cispadane Gaul.

PÆANS.

   "The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the
   tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds
   of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan,
   Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was
   a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a
   great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily
   past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of
   thanksgiving for, victory and safety."

      _K. O. Müller,
      History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,
      volume 1, page 27._

PÆONIANS, The.

   "The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly
   neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing
   to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks
   of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in
   which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The
   Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon
   the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the
   Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and
   south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 25._

   Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of
   the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but
   they escaped and returned home.

PAGANISM: Suppressed in the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 391-395.

PAGE.

      See CHIVALRY.

PAGUS.

      See GENS, ROMAN;
      also, HUNDRED.

PAIDONOMUS, The.

   The title of an officer who was charged with the general
   direction of the education and discipline of the young in
   ancient Sparta.

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

PAINE, Thomas, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE)
      KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.

PAINTED CHAMBER.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PAINTSVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PAIONIANS, The.

      See ALBANIANS.

PAIRS, Legislative.

      See WHIPS, PARTY.

PAITA: A. D. 1740.
   Destroyed by Commodore Anson.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PAITA, The.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PALACE, Origin of the name.

   The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on
   the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility
   for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The
   residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U.
   C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then
   rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small
   individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost.
   Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up
   a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His
   successors added to it, and built more and more edifices
   connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to
   itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the
   Palatium, or Palace.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 40._

PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.

      See STONE AGE.

{2410}

PALÆOLOGI, The.

   The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa
   and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus
   seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the
   Turks in 1453.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 62 (Genealogical table)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. E. Tennant,
      History of Modern Greece._

PALÆOPOLIS,
PALÆPOLIS.

      See NEAPOLIS.

PALÆSTRA, The.

      See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

PALAIS ROYAL, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

   ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.
PALATINE ELECTORATE.

   The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose
   in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.

      See FRANCONIA;
      also PALATINE COUNTS,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.
   Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.

   The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the
   Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the
   Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D.
   1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were
   divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the
   emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County
   Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for
   many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the
   Palatine branch."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume I, page 424._

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
   The Protestant Reformation.
   Ascendancy of Calvinism.

   "The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded,
   during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful
   princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of
   which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable
   tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the
   Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of
   Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant
   province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria,
   which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added
   greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic
   body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his
   doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally
   imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity
   rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious
   opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic
   faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see,
   openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the
   accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution
   took place. He was the first among the Protestant German
   princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion
   denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the
   'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of
   Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or
   include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been
   proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe
   his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the
   Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who
   then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every
   species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for
   the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in
   the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles
   IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or
   dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his
   son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at
   the head of the Hugonots."

      _Sir N. W. Wraxall,
      History of France, 1574-1610,
      volume 2, pages 163-165._

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.
   The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.
   Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.
   The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.
   Devastation and conquest of his dominions.
   The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.
   Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.
   Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.
   Death of Frederick V.
   Treaty with the Swedes.
   Nominal restoration of the young Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.
   Division in the Peace of Westphalia.
   Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.
   Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.
   The recreated electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.
   In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
   Ravaged by Turenne.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674; and 1674-1678.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.
   Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1680.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.
   The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.
   The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   Restitutions by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.
   The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710.
   Emigration of inhabitants to England,
   thence to Ireland and America.

      See PALATINES.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714.
   The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria
   in exchange for Sardinia.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Transferred in great part to Baden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1849.
   Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

   ----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------

PALATINATES, American.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;
      NEW ALBION;
      MAINE: A. D. 1639;
      NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
      NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

PALATINE, Counts.

   In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of
   the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence
   called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office
   was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of
   diminishing the power of the local rulers.
{2411}
   The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often
   with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.
   Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient
   'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the
   Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that
   title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of
   the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere
   colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before
   the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases
   even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as
   the empire became split among the immediate descendants of
   Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was
   found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were
   provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the
   elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;
   and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of
   Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe
   that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from
   the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise
   over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were
   undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to
   restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was
   no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in
   this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the
   provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the
   appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the
   primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,
   the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named
   burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In
   the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the
   empire."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      volume 1, pages 120-121._

PALATINE, The Elector.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152;
      and PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.

PALATINE, The English Counties.

   "The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their
   official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or
   authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they
   must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as
   their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An
   exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as
   to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next
   century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire,
   and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the
   bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain
   the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the
   first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine
   had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of
   Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of
   his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown.
   All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took
   the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own
   sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine
   jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which
   he exercised as justiciary."

      _W. Hunt,
      Norman Britain,
      pages 118-119._

   "The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the
   sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham
   was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6
   Will. IV, c. 19."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 9,
      section 98, footnote (volume 1)._

      See, also, PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES.

PALATINE, The Hungarian.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

PALATINE, The Irish Counties.

   "The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive
   civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ
   should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment
   in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's
   bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights'
   service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the
   lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he
   acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of
   France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such
   had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England;
   but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to
   Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time
   to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's
   vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their
   shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow,
   Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since
   called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming
   by far the greater portion of the English territories, the
   king's process had its course only within the lands belonging
   to the church."

      _E. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

PALATINE HILL, The.
   The Palatine City.
   The Seven Mounts.

   "The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in
   its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony
   only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was
   called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form
   of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this
   original city remained visible down to the period of the
   empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and
   original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the
   Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of
   the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the
   Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by
   its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to
   the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings'
   were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the
   Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest
   times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the
   Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the
   Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly
   obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the
   Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline;
   lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside
   of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the
   Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the
   Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions,
   manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to
   a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. …
   The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history
   of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply
   that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the
   forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they
   fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the
   Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      See, also, QUIRINAL;
      and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

{2412}

PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
   Migration to Ireland and America.

   "The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in
   May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children,
   Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By
   October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised
   husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These
   emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French
   oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector
   John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a
   devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans
   and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating
   of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871,
   holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable
   persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines
   in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious
   to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and
   thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were
   certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its
   government would transport them to the provinces of New York,
   the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they
   knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts
   were made to prevent suffering among these poor people;
   thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from
   churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in
   warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a
   thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on
   Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the
   English people, very much distress followed this unhappy
   hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British
   army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to
   Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the
   Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by
   February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea,
   in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes
   recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000
   souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress
   a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' …
   According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole
   number that reached England were returned by the Crown to
   Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres
   of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted
   with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of
   these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end
   of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North
   Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they
   established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne,
   Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly
   account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England.
   Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above
   the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from
   whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into
   North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest
   number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one
   under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the
   spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten
   ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board,
   as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. …
   The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island,
   for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the
   Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the
   Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown,
   Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the
   opposite side of the river at the present location of
   Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the
   immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their
   treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled
   many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie
   County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County
   and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which
   places they have affixed the names. Others went into
   Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony
   among German immigrants.

      _A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
      The Story of an Old Farm,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. B. Todd,
      Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 4)._

PALE, The English.

   "That territory within which the English retreated and
   fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after
   their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired
   the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did
   not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th
   century. In earlier times this territory was called the
   English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the
   'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term
   Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early
   adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived.
   The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from
   the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now
   treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it
   began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath,
   Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the
   reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of
   England was a nullity."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      pages 313-314, foot-note._

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175; and 1515.

PALE, The Jewish, in Russia.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880, and 19TH CENTURY.

PALE FACES, The (Ku-Klux Klan).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PALENQUE, Ruins of.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

   ----------PALERMO: Start--------

PALERMO: Origin.

      See PANORMUS;
      also SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.

PALERMO: A. D. 1146.
   Introduction of silk culture.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

PALERMO: A. D. 1282.
   The Sicilian Vespers.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.
   Surrender to King "Bomba."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PALERMO: A. D. 1860.
   Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.
   Bombardment by the Neapolitans.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

{2413}

   ----------PALESTINE: Start--------

PALESTINE:
   Early inhabitants.

      See
      AMALEKITES;
      AMMONITES;
      AMORITES;
      HITTITES;
      JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
      MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.

PALESTINE:
   Name.

   After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130,
   by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa
   to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had
   been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the
   modern name, Palestine.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

PALESTINE:
   History.

      See
      EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;
      JEWS;
      JERUSALEM;
      SYRIA;
      CHRISTIANITY;
      MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;
      CRUSADES.

   ----------PALESTINE: End--------

PALESTRO, Battle of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

PALFREYS,
PALAFRENI.

      See DESTRIERS.

PALI.

   "The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan
   race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into
   Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism
   began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and
   Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written."
   The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in
   the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the
   Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the
   learned.

      See SANSKRIT.

      _M. Williams,
      Indian Wisdom,
      introduction, pages xxix-xxx, foot-note._

PALILIA, Festival of the.

   "The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the
   Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the
   tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.
   This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which
   Romulus commenced the building of the city."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 40._

PALLA, The.

      See STOLA.

PALLADIUM, The.

   "The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a
   small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about
   three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam,
   after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign
   that he would take it under his special protection. During the
   night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the
   next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it,
   and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as
   they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if
   at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful
   calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that,
   at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed,
   and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and
   carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in
   the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes
   flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The
   Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her
   guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an
   oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in
   Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was
   brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome.
   Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the
   destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was
   afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta,
   in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple
   was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest,
   was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion
   of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard
   it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare
   of Rome depended on its preservation."

      _F. Nösselt,
      Mythology, Greek and Roman,
      page 3._

PALLESCHI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PALLIUM, The.

   "The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less
   cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by
   degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp.
   When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with
   a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of
   paludamentum."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1, p 37._

PALM, The Execution of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1855; 1858-1859.

PALMI.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

   ----------PALMYRA: Start--------

PALMYRA,
   Earliest knowledge of.

   "The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first
   mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was
   certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14]
   independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the
   Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It
   does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of
   great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The
   period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2)._

PALMYRA:
   Rise and fall.

   "Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots
   rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of
   Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well
   as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees
   which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The
   air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable
   springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A
   place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a
   convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the
   Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which
   conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the
   rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some
   writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial
   station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]
   Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent
   city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by
   the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an
   humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of
   Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and
   flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the
   subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the
   occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,
   when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.
   D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was
   organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus
   (some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,
   by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.
{2414}
   Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of
   the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over
   the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several
   campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia
   ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine
   firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the
   Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are
   said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich
   province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in
   the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their
   weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his
   widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition
   and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were
   made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike
   emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,
   fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain
   attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the
   Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing
   horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen
   of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up
   her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher
   Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and
   figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then
   given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)
   twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the
   remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of
   her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which
   had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt
   quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor
   returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from
   which it never rose."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 10-11._

   ----------PALMYRA: End--------

PALMYRÊNÉ, The.

   "Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between
   Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle
   Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the
   great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as
   belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly
   plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or
   productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin
   grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the
   fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about
   Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in
   the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even
   now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have
   traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is
   comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it
   expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley,
   Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by
   way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."

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

PALO ALTO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

PALSGRAVE.

   An Anglicized form of Pfalzgraf.

      See PALATINE COUNT.

PALUDAMENTUM, The.

   "As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military
   career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of
   scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet
   was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later
   times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual
   service."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

      See, also, PALLIUM.

PALUS MÆOTIS,
MÆOTIS PALUS.

   The ancient Greek name of the Sea of Azov.

PAMLICOS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAMPAS.
LLANOS.

   "In the southern continent [of America], the regions which
   correspond with the prairies of the United States are the
   'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both
   'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a
   plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an
   area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that
   of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the
   other extremity of the continent, have a much more
   considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles.
   This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly
   horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from
   the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries
   of Patagonia."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth,
      chapter 15._

   For an account of the Indian tribes of the Pampas.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAMPELUNA: Siege by the French (1521).

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

PAMPTICOKES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

PAN-HANDLE, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.

PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

      See IONIC AMPHICTYONY.

   ----------PANAMA: Start--------

PANAMA: A. D. 1501-1502.
   Discovery by Bastidas.
   Coasted by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505, and 1500.

PANAMA: A. D. 1509.
   Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.
   Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.
   Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.
   The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

PANAMA: A. D. 1519.
   Name and Origin of the city.

   Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing
   village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word
   signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the
   Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital
   and chief mart on the Pacific coast.

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15._

PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.
   Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama
   by the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PANAMA: A. D. 1688-1699.
   The Scottish colony of Darien.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

PANAMA: A. D. 1826.
   The Congress of American States.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.
   American right of transit secured by Treaty.
   Building of the Panama Railroad.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

PANAMA: A. D. 1855.
   An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.
   Opening of the Panama Railway.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

{2415}

PANAMA CANAL.
PANAMA SCANDAL.

   "The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count
   Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for
   connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the
   Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success
   achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed
   from time to time for the construction of a canal across the
   Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a
   comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern
   the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of
   the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for
   the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the
   Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as
   the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama
   Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily
   involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between
   Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles,
   not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level
   canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the
   Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The
   section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez
   Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of
   27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width
   was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly
   vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was
   commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however,
   of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The
   climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the
   soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost
   of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated;
   and the total amount of excavation required to form a level
   canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million
   cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at
   176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very
   extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after
   a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even
   when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually,
   in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly
   come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of
   the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was
   determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of
   completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish
   the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards;
   though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had
   increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial
   embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the
   carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the
   works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very
   unfinished state."

      _L. F. Vernon-Harcourt,
      Achievements in Engineering,
      chapter 14._

   "It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company
   stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government,
   a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding
   some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light,
   which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The
   indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps,
   his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to
   ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt
   expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The
   gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the
   interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought
   forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of
   corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that
   3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150
   Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he
   persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted
   details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately
   agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33
   Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses
   against the accused Directors were issued the same day,
   charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating
   belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of
   sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose,
   and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.'
   The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25,
   when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles,
   his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were
   absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November
   28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the
   Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of
   the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron
   Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body
   be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his
   sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the
   prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for
   purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on
   the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of
   suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full
   light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice
   said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the
   Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would
   make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a
   resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been
   sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the
   day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to
   do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet
   immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed
   during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively
   tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign
   Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December
   5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the
   Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course
   of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling
   evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that
   the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for
   puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that
   Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in
   Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. …
   On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned,
   because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the
   meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the
   Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps,
   M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company,
   on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the
   company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.
   This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five
   Senators and five Deputies.

      _Quarterly Register of Current History,
      March, 1893._

{2416}

   "The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane,
   Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of
   appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the
   bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with
   1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced
   against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned
   to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000
   francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs
   each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March
   8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut,
   Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on
   charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De
   Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty
   March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M.
   Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was
   condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of
   civil rights. The others were acquitted."

      _Cyclopedic Review of Current History,
      volume 3, number 1 (1803)._

   "On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the
   first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed
   more than three years before the institution of proceedings,
   reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary
   investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years'
   prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but
   Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for
   corruption."

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893,
      page 321._

   The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the
   venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only
   in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation
   of which the public had not known before the strength and
   frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold,
   they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was
   very different."

      _P. De Coubertin,
      L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique,
      page 266._

PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.

      See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

PANDES.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PANDOURS.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;
      and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

PANIPAT,
PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.

PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

PANJAB, The.

      See PUNJAB.

PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

   "The wide extent of territory which is included between the
   Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia,
   Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the
   ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their
   original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were
   intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were
   frequently united."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory
   described above, covering the center and heart of the modern
   Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying
   west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement
   of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and
   Goths:

      See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.;
      HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453;
      and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.

PANO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PANORMUS.

   The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded
   by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians,
   who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily.
   Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be
   depended upon.

PANORMUS, Battles at (B. C. 254-251).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

PANTANO DE BARGAS, Battle of (1819).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

PANTHEON AT ROME, The.

   "At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and
   friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and
   Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the
   architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still
   retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian
   church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a
   Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal
   thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the
   attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the
   barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be
   reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid
   durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans
   prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of
   their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could
   rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its
   completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of
   Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection
   with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the
   interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated
   to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal
   niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities,
   and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the
   twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior
   inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he
   suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the
   dome to the vault of heaven."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 13, part 2._

   "The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and
   dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls;
   the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry
   and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions,
   showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here;
   the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven
   were looking down into the interior of this place of worship,
   left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all
   these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint
   Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor,
   'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing
   heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its
   effect.'"

      _N. Hawthorne,
      The Marble Faun,
      chapter 50._

{2417}

PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

PANTIKAPÆUM.

      See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.

PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

   ----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY:
   St. Peter and the Church at Rome.

   "The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one
   which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter
   came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.
   42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of
   episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded
   it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may
   conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not
   at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the
   canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly
   that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an
   Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his
   friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything
   said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the
   contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;
   for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in
   which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in
   order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that
   they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome
   in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last
   of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that
   only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The
   Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,
   possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if
   Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second
   Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have
   asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs
   that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to
   be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic
   probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period
   of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I
   am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to
   accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at
   Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter
   suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim
   to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,
   where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim
   such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but
   Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever
   visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,
   whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we
   read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their
   sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example
   had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.
   If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he
   appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close
   upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his
   Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it
   worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the
   force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was
   not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws
   light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to
   leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his
   subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as
   the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …
   These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not
   remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties
   which he must have known he could not fulfil?"

      _G. Salmon,
      The Infallibility of the Church,
      pages 347-350._

   The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
   the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
   Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
   Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
   city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
   the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
   reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
   writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
   resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
   According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
   arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
   Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
   emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
   Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
   Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
   Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
   he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
   journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
   journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
   There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
   death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
   twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
   episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
   imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
   the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
   death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
   remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
   pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
   supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
   obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
   declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
   would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
   he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
   the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
   Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
   is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
   general.
{2418}
   After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
   governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
   apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
   the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
   to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
   the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
   the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
   Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
   The more the Church was extended, and the more its
   constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
   which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
   need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
   point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
   means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
   his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
   descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
   died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
   doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
   would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
   was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
   this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
   became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
   which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
   position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
   capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
   communication even with the most distant nations, was
   evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
   the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
   three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
   attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
   Church and of its bishops."

      _J. J. I. Dollinger,
      History of the Church,
      period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
      and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1)._

PAPACY:
   Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.

   The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the
   Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated
   by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,
   from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have
   always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise
   supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the
   Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the
   great schism of the ninth century.

   1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from
   a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to
   another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from
   Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now
   if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of
   Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
   the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final
   and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome
   over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a
   few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the
   third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by
   St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal
   having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is
   brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises
   his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and
   admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence
   entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,
   that for a century later it was customary to have them
   publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians
   appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so
   near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?
   Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while
   that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question
   regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated
   in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern
   church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the
   Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed
   then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of
   the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,
   for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the
   West, and his instructions are universally followed.
   Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third
   century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred
   on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the
   suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly
   vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great
   Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to
   Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him
   by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of
   the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the
   same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the
   protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of
   Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,
   to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on
   him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of
   Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against
   Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who
   takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian
   and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of
   Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of
   Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of
   that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of
   the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope
   Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the
   Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's
   conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of
   the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek
   schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church
   History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and
   learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern
   church, and consequently far removed from the local influences
   of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from
   the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
   supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not
   constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what
   superior authority means.

   2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the
   Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has
   ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,
   Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …
   Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to
   the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …

{2419}

   3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of
   Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an
   assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.
   … Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have
   been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The
   first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,
   in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the
   fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in
   553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in
   Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The
   Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least
   consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates
   over all of them, except the first and second councils of
   Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their
   authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils
   required the Pope's signature.

   4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of
   the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most
   remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from
   Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has
   received the light of faith from missionaries who were either
   especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops
   in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits
   of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is
   St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the
   fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who
   sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons
   received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as
   all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who
   empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of
   the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in
   France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active
   communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel
   in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the
   supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate
   as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his
   native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was
   commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the
   eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same
   Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and
   Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and
   other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme
   authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian
   II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was
   converted by missionaries introduced from England by the
   Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was
   consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints
   Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after
   their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual
   tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in
   communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of
   Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received
   likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,
   because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."

      _James, Cardinal Gibbons,
      The Faith of our Fathers,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
      The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated._

PAPACY:
   Supremacy of the Roman See:
   Grounds of the Denial.

   "The first document by which the partisans of the Papal
   sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.
   Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at
   Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a
   superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.
   Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not
   Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in
   this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the
   name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The
   letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately
   after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the
   years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen
   from the letter itself that it was written after a
   persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that
   of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years
   of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and
   96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is
   easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before
   that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still
   existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed
   with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the
   letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the
   letter was written after some persecution, in which had
   suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
   nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The
   persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.
   Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
   only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,
   twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In
   presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress
   laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the
   importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.
   Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.
   Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove
   nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue
   of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but
   from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let
   us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is
   one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote
   in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the
   time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could
   not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter
   act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he
   individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a
   suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of
   God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at
   Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
   draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
   centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as
   Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he
   wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning
   Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches
   wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several
   Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon
   the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,
   in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally
   Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday
   following the fourteenth day of the March moon.
{2420}
   The question in itself considered was of no great importance;
   and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should
   celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian
   festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the
   resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
   the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did
   the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the
   discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
   supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The
   question having been agitated, 'there were synods and
   convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,
   'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which
   they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There
   is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at
   the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church
   in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is
   another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same
   question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the
   Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,
   presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus
   presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities
   there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the
   Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one
   and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is
   evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod
   in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it
   to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and
   lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of
   the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably
   established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of
   Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as
   the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed
   the letter in the name of the synod which represented that
   Church."

      _Abbé Guettée,
      The Papacy,
      pages 53-58._

   "At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the
   metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a
   superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of
   ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several
   metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that
   the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already
   regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The
   empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil
   government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the
   Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also
   had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part
   with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the
   same circumstances which marked out a city for political
   preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical
   rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that
   the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the
   head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province
   was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a
   parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental
   counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of
   government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of
   time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the
   most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only
   over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in
   Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits
   of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely
   knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the
   conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into
   insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian
   patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was
   better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so
   shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist
   the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell
   under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already
   befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the
   patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual
   authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon
   of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to
   him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including
   Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia
   and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority
   of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The
   patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority
   on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was
   agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His
   brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters
   spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping
   aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,
   was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the
   Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave
   great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect
   was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,
   and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally
   took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see
   of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …
   Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were
   addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as
   Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more
   constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil
   matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the
   East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might
   respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the
   Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious
   to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops
   were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power
   depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that
   they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were
   the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of
   the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that
   Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the
   whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been
   founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the
   Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their
   commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,
   they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly
   derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by
   past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.
{2421}
   But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the
   claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church
   on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most
   critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.
   Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of
   the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the
   letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously
   interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when
   it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the
   general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled
   to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the
   strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who
   shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater
   prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and
   Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the
   see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views
   of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were
   universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown
   up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the
   greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the
   reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed
   itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.
   … In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the
   jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."

      _S. Cheetham,
      History of the Christian Church
      during the First Six Centuries,
      pages 181-195._

   "A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle
   reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of
   the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the
   Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he
   drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,
   and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the
   early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became
   Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the
   principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and
   accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on
   this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,
   Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,
   namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The
   principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy
   growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of
   Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out
   even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."

      _Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,
      The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity
      ("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 1._

PAPACY:
   Origin of the Papal title.

   "'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar
   endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense
   to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special
   address which, long before the names of patriarch or
   archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …
   He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not
   yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.
   325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a
   well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of
   a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus
   explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of
   Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'
   (father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops
   were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and
   consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater
   patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman
   account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first
   given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the
   Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to
   the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 7._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Christian History,
      section 130._

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.
   The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.

   The following is the succession of the popes, according to
   Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
   twenty years:
   "Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
   Linus,
   Anencletus,
   Clement; (to 77?)
   Evaristus,
   Alexander,
   Xystus,
   Telesphorus,
   Hyginus, to 142;
   Pius, to 157;
   Anicetus, to 168;
   Soter, to 177;
   Eleutherius, to 193;
   Victor, to 202;
   Zephyrinus, to 219;
   Callistus, to 223;
   Urban, to 230;
   Pontianus, to 235;
   Anterus, to 236;
   Fabian, to 250;
   Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
   Lucius, to 253;
   Stephan, to 257;
   Xystus II, to 258;
   Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
   Felix, to 274;
   Eutychianus, to 283;
   Caius, to 296;
   Marcellinus, to 304;
   Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
   Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
   Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
   Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
   Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
   and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
   Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
   Athanasius. …

   The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in
   358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to
   the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the
   honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his
   condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was
   again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman
   clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,
   or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When
   Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died
   in the country, in 365.

   Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the
   very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights
   against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration
   from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.
   The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …

   Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again
   endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the
   clergy and people. …

   Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
   successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
   was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
   worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
   the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
   to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
   A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
   emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
   the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
   Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
{2422}
   The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
   the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
   small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
   I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
   Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
   metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
   appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
   peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
   from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
   collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
   festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
   authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
   Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
   desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
   Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
   Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
   eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
   preservation, at least, of their lives."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 2, pages 213-215._

   "For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively
   obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man
   who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances
   which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …
   Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.
   Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the
   distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in
   pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in
   no position to assert independence in any matter, and were
   only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of
   organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes
   had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the
   greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was
   investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than
   anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much
   of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still
   indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West
   —what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of
   jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a
   doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were
   not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered
   was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of
   old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,
   order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,
   eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.
   He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has
   got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of
   dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the
   troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as
   pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity
   which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority
   of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural
   doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,
   'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To
   him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance
   of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,
   the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so
   dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,
   his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his
   single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."

      _C. Gore,
      Leo the Great,
      chapters 6 and 7._

PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
   The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
   to Gregory the Great.

   The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from
   461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of
   Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was
   called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the
   east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or
   III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius
   concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,
   from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in
   endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at
   Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at
   the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised
   the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the
   Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established
   against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the
   majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as
   antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody
   strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,
   Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his
   rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the
   pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to
   523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,
   in the eastern Church.

   John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
   cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
   Constantinople.

   Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
   at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
   Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.

   Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
   to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
   died in 536.

   Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island
   of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who
   became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the
   east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,
   and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to
   Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in
   obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his
   condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the
   west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because
   there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death
   of Vigilius.

   John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
   Lombard dominion in Italy.

   Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,
   ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard
   devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the
   series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,
   from 590 to 604."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      History of the Church,
      volume 2, pages 213-217._

{2423}

   "Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of
   Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay
   prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the
   invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants
   trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a
   climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time
   aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in
   one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and
   shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a
   daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this
   state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.
   The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the
   greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their
   pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities
   in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character
   and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent
   saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and
   accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and
   people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was
   one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a
   pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's
   confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople
   to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter
   to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),
   imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was
   intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the
   clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating
   approval of their choice. … At length the imperial
   confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled
   from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the
   gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and
   discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he
   was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.
   Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …
   Having been once placed in the high position he so little
   coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious
   duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive
   policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable
   than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as
   religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal
   care. And this is the more striking in combination with the
   fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all
   the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the
   ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary
   monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure
   monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is
   noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under
   strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting
   clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly
   waited on the pope in his chamber."

      _J. Barmby,
      Gregory the Great,
      chapter 2._

   "Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of
   his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both
   in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his
   Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to
   his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in
   the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to
   us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over
   every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If
   he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an
   emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the
   vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a
   distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range
   of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they
   illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,
   and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,
   incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the
   preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and
   strengthening the polity of the western nations, and
   counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The
   divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.
   Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.
   Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the
   mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even
   including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and
   whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he
   became to all succeeding times an image of the great
   sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his
   words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of
   Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at
   sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily
   pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect
   episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the
   overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of
   the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his
   doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the
   line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing
   to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates
   new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their
   foundation-stones."

      _T. W. Allies,
      The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
      from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,
      pages 309-335._

      See, also,
      ROME: A. D. 590-640.

PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.

   The succession of Popes.
   Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
   Boniface III., 607;
   Boniface IV., 608-615;
   Deusdedit, 615-618;
   Boniface V., 619-625;
   Honorius I., 625-638;
   Severinus, 640;
   John IV., 640-642;
   Theodore I., 642-649;
   Martin I., 649-655;
   Eugenius I., 655-657;
   Vitalian, 657-672;
   Adeodatus II., 672-676;
   Donus I., 676-678;
   Agatho, 678-682;
   Leo II., 682-683;
   Benedict II., 684-685;
   John V., 685-686;
   Canon, 686-687;
   Sergius I.,687-701;
   John VI., 701-705;
   John VII., 705-707;
   Sisinnius, 708;
   Constantine, 708-715;
   Gregory II., 715-731.

PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
   Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.

   The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
   Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
   attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
   image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
   CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
   but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
   "The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
   the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
   elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
   some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
   project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
   another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
   Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
   Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
   the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
   exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
   Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
   effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
   recovered.
{2424}
   In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
   "The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
   by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
   consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
   Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
   solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
   press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
   boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
   excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
   all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
   suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
   and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
   already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
   time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
   independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
   but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
   reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
   Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
   still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
   thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
   with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
   to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
   now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
   for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
   of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
   external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
   held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
   Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
   of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
   eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
   of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
   the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
   Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
   retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
   in central Italy ended."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 2._

   The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the
   throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending
   their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally
   beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.
   Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to
   their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne
   finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the
   bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a
   spiritual principality.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 15._

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.
   The succession of Popes.

   Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
   Zacharias, 741-752;
   Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
   Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
   Paul I., 757-767;
   Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
   Hadrian I., 772-795;
   Leo III., 795-816.

PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
   Origin of the Papal States.
   The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

   As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.
   755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil
   the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to
   give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all
   over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in
   the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as
   should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,
   Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,
   Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,
   supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,
   Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni
   were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22
   cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the
   Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was
   established."

      _J; E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 3, chapter 10._

   "An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the
   negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a
   restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands
   failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or
   Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.
   Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of
   victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the
   keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit
   them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus
   the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …
   which, with some few changes, has been held by his
   successors."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 15._

   "When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up
   arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son
   Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the
   Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius
   in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made
   northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish
   empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of
   reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,
   he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the
   pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,
   although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the
   Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman
   Church twenty years before."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

   "It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of
   endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]
   amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island
   of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and
   Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This
   rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could
   not give away what he did not possess, and we know that
   Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks
   till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these
   gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right
   of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of
   acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and
   the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that
   the properties were granted only under some form of feudal
   vassalage."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 4, chapter 16._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

{2425}

   "Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by
   the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that
   belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of
   other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium
   utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts
   been ever actually reduced into possession."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 10._

PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
   Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."

   "Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,
   perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the
   donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the
   spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

   This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an
   epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the
   liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.
   According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors
   was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of
   baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was
   physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte
   withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared
   his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and
   resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of
   Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was
   productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes
   were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of
   Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes
   were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal
   gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and
   irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the
   ecclesiastical State."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 49._

   "But this is not all, although this is what historians, in
   admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.
   The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his
   clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them
   enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the
   same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial
   office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the
   diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,
   and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice
   of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old
   imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German
   Emperors."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 7, and foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 817._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 8, number 8._

PAPACY: A. D. 800.
   The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.

PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

   The succession of Popes.
   Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
   Paschal I., 817-:824;
   Eugene II., 824-827;
   Valentine, 827;
   Gregory IV., 827-844;
   Sergius II., 844-847;
   Leo IV., 847-855;
   Benedict III.; 855-858:
   Nicholas I., 858-867;
   Hadrian II., 867-872;
   John VIII., 872-882;
   Marinus: 882-884;
   Hadrian III., 884-885;
   Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
   Formosus, 891-896;
   Boniface VI., 896;
   Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
   Romanus, 897-898;
   Theodore II., 898;
   John IX., 898-900;
   Benedict IV., 900-908;
   Leo V., 908;
   Sergius III., 904-911;
   Anastasius III., 911-918;
   Lando, 913-914;
   John X., 914-928;
   Leo VI., 928-929;
   Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
   John XI., 981-986;
   Leo VII., 936-989;
   Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
   Marinus II.,942-946;
   Agapetus II., 946-956;
   John XII., 956-964;
   Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
   Benedict V., 964-965;
   John XIII., 965-972;
   Benedict VI., 972-974;
   Donus II., 974-975;
   Benedict VII., 975-984;
   John XIV., 984-985;
   John XV., 985-996;
   Gregory V., 996-999;
   John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
   Sylvester II., 999-1003;
   John XVII., 1003;
   John XVIII., 1003-1009;
   Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
   Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
   John XIX., 1024-1033;
   Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
   Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
   Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
   Clement II., 1046-1047;
   Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
   Damasus II., 1048;
   Leo IX., 1049-1054;
   Victor II., 1055-1057;
   Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
   Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
   Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
   Alexander II., 1061-1073.

PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
   The False Decretals.

   "There existed in each of the national churches, a collection
   of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as
   circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in
   Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently
   attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle
   of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared
   in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but
   into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private
   collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence
   of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This
   recension contained also a number of forged documents. There
   were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,
   from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of
   other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also
   contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine
   [see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as
   they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic
   arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in
   matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of
   those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on
   the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect
   their essential character."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 2, page 195._

   "Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
   collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
   Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
   D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
   collection did not appear until after the death of
   Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
   earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
   in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
   year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
   Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
   about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
   discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
   Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
   with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
   in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
   vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
   Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
   grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
   century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
   historical inaccuracies.
{2426}
   Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
   Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
   several Epistles profess to have been written by different
   pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
   barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
   of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
   appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
   confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
   time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
   resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
   use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
   and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
   name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
   persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
   completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
   highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
   called Pseudo-Isidorus."

      _J. E. Riddle,
      History of the Papacy,
      volume 1, pages 405-407._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 4._

      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope,
      volume 1, page 317._

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 9._

      _H. C. Lea,
      Studies in Christian History,
      pp. 43-76._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 4, section 60._

PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
   Demoralization of the Church.
   Degradation of the Holy See.
   Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

   "No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into
   which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,
   had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the
   Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known
   among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,
   and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid
   remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the
   Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'
   says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani
   and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When
   Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,
   he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the
   house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found
   their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,
   contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by
   women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution
   to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of
   Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the
   case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At
   the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body
   of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after
   subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three
   fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was
   subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years
   that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into
   the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her
   equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

      See ROME: A. D. 903-964].

   These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and
   beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic
   tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,
   and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,
   Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil
   government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the
   then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,
   under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in
   keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says
   Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
   courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages
   to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were
   spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their
   representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off
   by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received
   in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.
   974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,
   plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he
   could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John
   XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of
   money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the
   Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal
   bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was
   only prevented by the general indignation excited by the
   report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was
   consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of
   ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and
   murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;
   and, when her father would not assent except on the condition
   of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and
   consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of
   the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of
   these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the
   world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had
   perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it
   over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to
   luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times
   as have been above described … we should have felt for
   certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it
   must be by some external power; she was helpless and
   resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was
   no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.
   (A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect
   character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate
   Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to
   work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin
   that reformation which ended in the purification and
   monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his
   Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever
   should make any office or station in the Church a subject of
   purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited
   with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his
   own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as
   follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me
   the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without
   price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his
   first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be
   thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of
   the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those
   imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had
   introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the
   instrument of his general reformation.
{2427}
   The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he
   introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote
   some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who
   had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for
   a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far
   from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the
   world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was
   arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in
   those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived
   free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too
   generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have
   come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his
   predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his
   intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three
   months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of
   his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to
   create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a
   high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester
   III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in
   the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the
   Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria
   Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to
   preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of
   troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who
   molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits
   of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had
   cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …
   This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made
   his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came
   into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,
   a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was
   allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the
   abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had
   been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a
   monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was
   persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself
   and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the
   Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement
   II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.
   Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three
   or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical
   duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now
   we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck
   his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but
   'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that
   Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the
   Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been
   called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope
   from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a
   young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his
   superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as
   Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,
   and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful
   man."

      _J. H. Newman,
      Essays Critical and Historical,
      volume 2, pages 255-265._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

PAPACY: A. D. 1053.
   Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church
   to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
   The Filioque Controversy.
   Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

      See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;
      also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
   Hildebrand and Henry IV.
   The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
   Empire and Papacy in conflict.
   The War of Investitures.

   "Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German
   origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the
   monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his
   uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned
   Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and
   formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or
   Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope
   Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him
   confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together
   with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.
   He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his
   death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where
   he had previously resided, and where, according to several
   writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his
   youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where
   he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on
   the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his
   preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the
   new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a
   monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own
   authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,
   and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing
   him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him
   for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised
   him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically
   elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;
   laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he
   caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election
   was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was
   the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.
   From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the
   Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.
   Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of
   San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end
   he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having
   renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees
   of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and
   against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were
   fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at
   Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm
   in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply
   wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or
   authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as
   well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of
   the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but
   they were soon undeceived.
{2428}
   Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope
   Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most
   important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of
   this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:
   he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on
   the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to
   their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the
   two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates
   were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by
   this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the
   freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no
   promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice
   of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the
   struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first
   token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that
   time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a
   new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and
   made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory
   VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo
   IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and
   holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity
   to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of
   their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned
   five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the
   papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the
   East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated
   itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by
   Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius
   had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation
   took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin
   observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled
   meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being
   dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only
   renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He
   then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to
   Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman
   clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor
   Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that
   prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand
   selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the
   emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his
   entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried
   him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the
   clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.
   The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels
   of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor
   on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis
   [October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of
   his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a
   child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the
   regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had
   scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when
   the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope
   without any imperial intervention. In the absence of
   Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the
   former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on
   Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the
   throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the
   ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

      _Count de Montalambert,
      The Monks of the West,
      book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6)._

   Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again
   the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand
   from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was
   obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the
   head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the
   support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of
   Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his
   rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was
   succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's
   influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand
   himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal
   tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who
   should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and
   conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he
   protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the
   papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory
   thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the
   burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an
   article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the
   approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed
   only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,
   King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,
   and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice
   of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my
   prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not
   allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go
   unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration
   beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on
   the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the
   right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been
   crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to
   himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when
   it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the
   combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of
   Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the
   authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the
   objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of
   Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as
   his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.
   The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a
   disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the
   people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow
   myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election
   should have been ratified by the king and the princes of
   Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so
   pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to
   allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was
   accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the
   following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a
   papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect
   to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,
   Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the
   ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      volume 2, page 347-348._

{2429}

   "From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of
   clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their
   celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This
   prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the
   observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and
   menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed
   over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for
   Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a
   married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that
   marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large
   proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who
   handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It
   was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not
   less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular
   cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic
   ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them
   that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with
   unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical
   celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of
   the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating
   image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for
   the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of
   conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with
   adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched
   which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such
   anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,
   convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as
   formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but
   commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring
   all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded
   priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative
   foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of
   Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the
   presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,
   effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the
   complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the
   most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless
   bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or
   were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among
   men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more
   unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by
   austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal
   menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the
   continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed
   over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.
   Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy
   baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a
   struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died
   away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and
   murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight
   hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of
   laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's
   still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices
   are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards
   his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address
   and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as
   the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of
   their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal
   dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency
   an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that
   choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.
   Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest
   bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no
   less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a
   reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could
   not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the
   coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the
   crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of
   battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was
   placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as
   they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage
   and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal
   Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the
   powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the
   Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this
   'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military
   service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have
   exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged
   to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.
   Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he
   proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits
   of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,
   and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men
   to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to
   universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman
   Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of
   Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted
   in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene
   conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every
   house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and
   pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his
   legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to
   the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his
   territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon
   being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his
   competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent
   successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the
   Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European
   continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to
   Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved
   and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in
   Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and
   the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for
   their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied
   severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer
   assurance both of the right and the power to control every
   other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the
   civilized world."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Hildebrand
      (Edinburgh Review, April, 1845)._

{2430}

   "At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons
   against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who
   enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of
   the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened
   from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against
   Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by
   harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope
   of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the
   dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by
   his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,
   sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out
   (still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He
   wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant
   confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother
   and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated
   councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church
   properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion
   of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,
   soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy
   resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod
   (February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical
   penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and
   five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban
   on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the
   same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,
   which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric
   or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the
   rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of
   excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory
   caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in
   order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking
   measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were
   involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was
   threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom
   he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the
   ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated
   directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely
   overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At
   Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the
   German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as
   was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.
   The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at
   Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm
   against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and
   Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of
   Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious
   voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;
   but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves
   before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German
   princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur
   in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to
   the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany
   itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban
   for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then
   resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take
   their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before
   the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his
   wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a
   friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on
   the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to
   the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of
   affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the
   Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in
   Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This
   brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa
   (January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till
   evening during three days before he released him from the ban
   at the intercession of Matilda."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      pages 256-258._

   "It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took
   place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the
   popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the
   brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse
   of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any
   sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his
   engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned
   at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character
   in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a
   penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the
   Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the
   Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,
   disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of
   policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to
   his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three
   successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy
   court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a
   penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was
   difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his
   fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of
   Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the
   bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of
   the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the
   fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The
   conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly
   four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a
   place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of
   the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes
   and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the
   Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released
   from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights
   of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach
   of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to
   proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms
   to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of
   that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,
   proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends
   the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as
   to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.
   'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half
   contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his
   lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more
   guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been
   softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.
   … Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither
   the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a
   Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the
   proposed treachery.
{2431}
   Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of
   open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to
   throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not
   heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed
   at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their
   choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on
   the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by
   the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in
   Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual
   violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and
   greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges
   and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of
   excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their
   obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon
   calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates
   at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing
   an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
   an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory
   for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At
   the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is
   defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of
   the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in
   the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry
   crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before
   Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,
   expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates
   to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the
   monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults
   it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful
   attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of
   March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the
   treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the
   anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.
   The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John
   Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the
   Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle
   of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by
   Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy
   See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon
   the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into
   mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of
   his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at
   Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to
   end."

      _W. S. Lilly,
      The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages
      (Contemporary Review, August, 1882)._

   Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving
   Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy
   with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of
   another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures
   was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.
   "Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one
   much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State
   substance. The more important elections should be henceforth
   made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to
   interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other
   electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in
   fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;
   who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in
   Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey
   were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,
   however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and
   crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage
   for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in
   Germany to find place before consecration, being the same
   arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict
   between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Medieval Church History,
      lecture 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 2._

      _W. R. W. Stephens.
      Hildebrand and His Times._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      books 6-8._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
      CANOSSA;
      ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
   Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.

   "According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
   vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
   belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
   almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
   selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
   absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
   by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
   Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
   that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
   of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
   necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
   Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
   competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
   bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
   elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
   their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
   received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
   despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
   Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
   confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
   subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
   prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
   the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
   prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
   Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
   naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
   is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
   emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
   instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
   uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
   ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
   conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
   of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
   into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
   good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
   to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
   transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
   IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
   possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
   decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
   with a remarkable variation from the original form.
{2432}
   The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
   neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
   as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
   pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
   and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
   afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
   presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
   to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
   personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
   foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
   of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
   the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
   vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
   for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
   discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 4, number 1._

PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Donation of the Countess Matilda.

   "The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,
   Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry
   III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she
   succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,
   Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,
   son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their
   union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative
   ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally
   appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted
   daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory
   VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the
   difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this
   Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her
   dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,
   confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,
   entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.
   Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner
   'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original
   deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of
   confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories
   conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.
   However, it is generally thought that they comprised the
   district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying
   on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from
   Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged
   75."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      page 235, foot-note._

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.
   The succession of Popes.

   Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
   Urban II., 1088-1099;
   Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
   Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
   Callistus II., 1119-1124;
   Honorius II., 1124-1130;
   Innocent II., 1130-1143;
   Celestine II., 1143-1144;
   Lucius II., 1144-1145;
   Eugene III., 1145-1153;
   Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
   Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
   The Council of Clermont.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
   Continued conflict with the Empire.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

   "The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,
   in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the
   glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had
   been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they
   aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising
   tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the
   contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest
   supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of
   Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell
   of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her
   possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the
   Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands
   which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the
   Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source
   of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.
   The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full
   scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old
   Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an
   equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more
   deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and
   Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard
   Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the
   Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of
   the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by
   Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to
   1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was
   a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great
   Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long
   refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with
   dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to
   fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.
   1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the
   unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had
   maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the
   Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in
   adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he
   asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used
   his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.
   at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was
   reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the
   ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent
   was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative
   genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his
   clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his
   calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides
   Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,
   the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the
   conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],
   and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection
   of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the
   crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by
   diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy
   and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church
   [see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,
   though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement
   which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.
   The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical
   sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …
{2433}
   By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers
   and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there
   grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.
   Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new
   enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical
   system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of
   followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the
   Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor
   and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed
   at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the
   truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once
   into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great
   reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The
   reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the
   skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the
   Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the
   thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the
   protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in
   sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken
   and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected
   with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.
   Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased
   in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the
   popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede
   the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common
   people, but in the universities as well, did their influence
   become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service
   of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached
   Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf
   of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The
   Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's
   guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won
   sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic
   was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North
   Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;
   if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his
   independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of
   Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and
   consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.
   Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into
   the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal
   policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

      See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

   Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their
   hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep
   the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their
   purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the
   stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in
   the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].

   By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were
   crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were
   destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy
   only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin
   influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French
   popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the
   Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the
   power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a
   connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of
   France."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 18-23._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. L. Kington,
      History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans._

PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.
   The succession of Popes.

   Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
   Alexander III., 1159-1181;
   Lucius III., 1181-1185;
   Urban III., 1185-1187;
   Gregory VIII., 1187;
   Clement III., 1187-1191;
   Celestine III., 1191-1198.

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
   Conflict of Church and State in England.
   Becket and Henry II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
   in the States of the Church.

   "Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the
   Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested
   the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish
   sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the
   Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves
   Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were
   ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not
   gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first
   Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian
   prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath
   of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from
   the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and
   compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise
   the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained
   from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands
   which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first
   time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1. page 21._

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
   The succession of Pores.
   Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
   Honorius II., 1216-1227;
   Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
   Celestine IV., 1241;
   Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
   Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
   Urban IV., 1261-1264;
   Clement IV., 1265-1268;
   Gregory X., 1271-1276;
   Innocent V., 1276;
   Hadrian V., 1276;
   John XXI., 1276-1277;
   Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
   Martin IV., 1281-1285;
   Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
   Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
   Celestine V., 1294.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
   The acme of Papal power.
   The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

   "The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
   strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
   each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
   independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
   control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
   this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
   many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
   parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
   taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
   diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
   Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
   and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
   before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
   of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
   acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
   interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
{2434}
   The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
   hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
   kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
   inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
   placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
   'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
   night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
   which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
   royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
   are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
   apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
   quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
   'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
   to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
   judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
   public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
   Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
   arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
   Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
   public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
   noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
   Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
   other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
   this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
   the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      volume 3, book 1, chapter 3._

      _M. Gosselin,
      The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
      part 2, chapter 3._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1203.
   The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.
   Subjugation of the English King John.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.

PAPACY: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars
   of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

PAPACY: A. D. 1266.
   Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
   to Charles of Anjou.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1268.
   The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,
   affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1275.
   Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne
   and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

PAPACY: A. D. 1279.
   The English Statute of Mortmain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
   The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
   His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."
   Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

   Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a
   man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder
   of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in
   his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first
   persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his
   election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and
   then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the
   good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept
   him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of
   the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election
   was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he
   decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in
   Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical
   dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered
   the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,
   for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of
   the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was
   established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated
   22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of
   sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every
   subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.
   Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,
   and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the
   Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his
   tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only
   persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who
   flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at
   the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that
   Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100
   years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.
   Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and
   temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which
   proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope
   had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from
   the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the
   arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in
   preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they
   tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the
   most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman
   See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the
   archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his
   troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.
   … Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the
   laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights
   of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the
   king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,
   like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to
   contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The
   pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.
   1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the
   clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any
   payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.
   The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or
   treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.
   This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so
   modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free
   benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years
   after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of
   sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator
   mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all
   privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and
   people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now
   familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the
   superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and
   prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.
{2435}
   The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating
   the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,
   incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called
   'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without
   which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head
   in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,
   the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the
   church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …
   subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The
   conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the
   salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the
   Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,
   appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey
   any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope
   resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the
   excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of
   Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England
   to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having
   sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring
   envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering
   Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40
   miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately
   raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some
   of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and
   burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a
   dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these
   had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was
   one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so
   inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on
   the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but
   for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably
   delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place
   rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,
   but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud
   between the Church and her eldest son."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      chapter 9._

   "Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets
   and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most
   revolting features of the human character. Many of the
   charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that
   he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and
   that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most
   criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly
   to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his
   severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go
   everywhere blackening his character. They have been
   exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to
   his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,
   formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance
   claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in
   arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his
   predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in
   fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part
   of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy
   had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its
   decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is
   to be set against the drama of Canossa."

      _A. R. Pennington.
      The Church in Italy,
      chapter 6._

   "The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach
   by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,
   and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in
   ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally
   suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the
   death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the
   breach with France by electing a French pope; the others
   insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of
   the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election
   of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing
   his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his
   quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly
   come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,
   was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he
   resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College
   crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and
   two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned
   to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian
   writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'
   Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his
   engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his
   subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the
   condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the
   manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further
   disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg
   to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To
   escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the
   pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of
   Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging
   to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th
   century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or
   Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by
   its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of
   Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,
   was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his
   residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after
   succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left
   his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful
   wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent
   exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase
   her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this
   inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the
   account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan
   crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount
   suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and
   territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12 (volume 5)._

      _J. E. Darras.
      History of the Catholic Church,
      period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)_.

PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.
   The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.

   The following is the succession of the Popes during the
   Avignon period:
   Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
   Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
   Clement V., 1305-1314;
   John XXII., 1316-1334;
   Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
   Clement VI., 1342-1352;
   Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
   Urban V., 1362-1370;
   Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

{2436}

   "The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less
   dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by
   a College of Cardinals in which the French element
   predominated, they gave a French character to the government
   of the Church. This character was at variance with the
   principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …
   The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of
   French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French
   Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of
   the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that
   the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.
   This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the
   general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in
   the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the
   ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds
   which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See
   were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon
   period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion
   that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by
   the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this
   general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so
   weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by
   which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the
   Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the
   least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years
   offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a
   writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,
   emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the
   Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with
   the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The
   extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn
   is an unfair exaggeration."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 58-60._

PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.
   Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
   Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
   The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.
   Rienzi's revolution at Rome.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation of the States of the Church
   and the return from Avignon to Rome.
   Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

   "Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped
   by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have
   come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer
   offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of
   affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …
   The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had
   fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic
   measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely
   lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a
   Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his
   military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy
   of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles
   were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban
   V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into
   obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined
   "to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries
   of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury
   of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief
   stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the
   fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of
   three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which
   happened three months after his return, was regarded by many
   as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had
   returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced
   to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return
   through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The
   French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy
   among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not
   associated with any of the elements of state life existing in
   Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church
   immediately under their power involved the destruction of the
   small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the
   democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise
   enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to
   content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal
   obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French
   governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt
   against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to
   her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the
   word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in
   the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of
   Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy
   might have been swept away if Florence could have brought
   about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back
   from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised
   to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal
   excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves
   of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and
   France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their
   cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could
   save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse
   refused to let him mount when he set out on his
   journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties
   of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of
   its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to
   be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some
   small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed
   only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A
   congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was
   anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to
   Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were
   embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now
   inevitable."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.

PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
   Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
   Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

{2437}

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
   Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
   The Great Western Schism.
   Battle in Rome and siege and partial
   destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
   The Council of Pisa.
   Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

   "For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal
   Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the
   States of the Church were harried to death by contending
   factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.
   The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;
   the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived
   only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the
   election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.
   Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round
   the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman
   for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal
   Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was
   finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an
   intended compromise between the Italian party and the French
   party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini
   presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope
   had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his
   name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the
   Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed
   him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was
   arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news
   was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to
   rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to
   still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the
   conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was
   elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and
   finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,
   however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with
   difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the
   ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.
   This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in
   the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned
   by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within
   its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew
   to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they
   afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert
   of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who
   took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender
   the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his
   compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the
   papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with
   citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed
   force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and
   Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,
   the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the
   undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.
   Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the
   Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the
   Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a
   year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,
   the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of
   Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and
   imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great
   battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the
   anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to
   surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage
   done to it during this siege must have been very great. In
   some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its
   marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the
   Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it
   for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they
   passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and
   razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an
   attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything
   by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;
   but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,
   and the attempt was given up."

      _W. W. Story,
      Castle St. Angelo,
      chapter 5._

   "Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
   for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
   the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
   have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
   election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
   Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
   princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
   Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
   owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
   written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
   against the election, as not having been free, and they called
   on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
   in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
   the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
   the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
   Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
   Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
   Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
   two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
   Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
   latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
   Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
   remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
   succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
   his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
   at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
   affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
   Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
   nations acting with them, were:
   Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
   Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
   Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
   Alexander V., a native of Candia,
   who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
   and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
   …
   Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
   Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
   such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
   and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
   time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
   Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
   his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
   Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
   the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
   Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
{2438}
   The same view was taken by most of the universities of
   Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
   it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
   conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
   parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
   a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
   XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
   obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
   authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
   March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
   and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
   Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
   present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
   archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
   absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
   generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
   Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
   collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
   civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
   France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
   claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
   the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
   conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
   Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
   V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
   elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
   man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
   Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
   adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
   Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
   "The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
   laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
   claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
   Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
   Church."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 20._

   "The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest
   known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,
   when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough
   reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This
   was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils
   which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely
   increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,
   and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal
   power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope
   he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple
   fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the
   Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that
   these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great
   Apostacy of the 16th century."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 141._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      volume 9, section 1._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6)._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      sections 269-270 (volume 3)._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7)._

      _St. C. Baddeley,
      Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI._

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.
   Rival Popes during the Great Schism.

   Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
   Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
   Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
   Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
   Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
   Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
   Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
   John XXIII., 1410-1415.

PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
   Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
   The Council of Constance.
   Election of Martin V.
   Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.

   "In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve
   appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed
   upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and
   members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,
   who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical
   propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.
   John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to
   correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be
   expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those
   of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops
   coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret
   understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the
   latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon
   turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek
   refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).
   From this city John opened communications with the princes of
   Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the
   council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of
   Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November
   1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally
   throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased
   by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various
   theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,
   greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to
   the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled
   state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of
   ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000
   ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was
   largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,
   close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300
   doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in
   person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,
   and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many
   of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as
   might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing
   to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a
   limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in
   the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all
   questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by
   that of the representatives of the various nations, including
   doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a
   threefold character, viz.,
   1. To terminate the papal schism;
   2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly
   those of Huss; and
   3. To enact reformatory decrees.

   … It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
   attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
   only because he was forced to take the step by the
   representations of others. …
{2439}
   Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
   naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
   legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
   questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
   member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
   brought before a general conference of nations, and this
   result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
   of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
   for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
   doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
   memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
   circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
   pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
   this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
   energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
   or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
   a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
   the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
   Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
   Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
   The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
   induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
   rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
   faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
   Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
   now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
   before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
   protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
   groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
   made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
   to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
   Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
   Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
   departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
   confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
   the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
   indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
   d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
   Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
   without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
   Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
   the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
   Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
   relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
   schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
   Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
   under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
   getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
   action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
   cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
   sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
   justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
   work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
   of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
   and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].

   In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting
   under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the
   fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to
   Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges
   —some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from
   the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by
   a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on
   May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed
   and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,
   Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to
   accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict
   XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,
   though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on
   the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy
   having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a
   legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to
   an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this
   particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each
   nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the
   choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished
   for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of
   disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned
   under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on
   the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the
   work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended
   mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the
   English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of
   the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a
   schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of
   before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they
   were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully
   carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a
   committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each
   nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils
   were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite
   agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt
   the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      sections 270-271 (volume 3)._

   The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
   unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
   the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
   the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
   accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
   this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
   Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
   the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
   reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
   Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
   meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
   certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
   difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
   demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
   interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
   back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
   such a degree that any change might have brought about a
   revolution.
{2440}
   It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
   involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
   income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
   great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
   made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
   regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
   was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
   not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
   an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
   retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
   much needed amendment was again deferred."

      _L. Pastor,
      History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
      volume 1, pages 209-210._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6)._

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1431.
   Election of Eugenius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
   The Council of Basle.
   Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.

   "The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils
   with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a
   Council was no longer that word of terror which a little
   before it had been. There was more than one motive for
   summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.
   Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching
   her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she
   herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not
   yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its
   favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the
   restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church
   in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,
   in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of
   Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to
   set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third
   Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who
   sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after
   the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so
   completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight
   regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council
   seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done
   before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops
   and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A
   democratic element made itself felt throughout all its
   deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a
   revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say
   that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.
   At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for
   work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites
   for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,
   alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not
   conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to
   dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and
   in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had
   been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the
   superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,
   as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be
   dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its
   own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals
   to take their share in its labours, began the work of
   reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;
   recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of
   anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.
   Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;
   Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in
   these reforms one source after another of the income which had
   hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while
   no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due
   dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.
   As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the
   Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that
   negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more
   conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to
   Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending
   (January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and
   electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a
   retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing
   the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.

      See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.

   The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public
   opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his
   competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him
   a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,
   a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the
   Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of
   another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another
   half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its
   members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,
   though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of
   inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of
   the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the
   last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely
   and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."

      _R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Medieval Church History,
      lecture 20._

   "In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
   made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
   following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
   after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
   of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
   of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
   church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
   addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
   condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
   the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
   sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
   union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
   magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
   when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
   edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
   much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
   none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
   union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
   liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
   Greek court and clergy during their absence from
   Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
   galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
   equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
   Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
   Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
   disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
   took up the cross against the Turks.
{2441}
   On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
   in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
   sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
   bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
   Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
   making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
   wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
   the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
   abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
   bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
   grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
   of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
   Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
   hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
   empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
   sultan."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2)._

   Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors
   were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the
   Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was
   won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;
   for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a
   political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than
   ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his
   policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in
   those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to
   a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the
   energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous
   diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the
   age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness
   abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to
   divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a
   problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new
   atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we
   may adopt the language of their apologists) they took
   advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in
   Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of
   civilisation which might render organic reform needless."

      _R. L. Poole,
      Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
      chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PAPACY: A. D. 1439.
   Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).

PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Recovery of character and influence.
   Beginning of the Renaissance.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

PAPACY: A. D. 1455.
   Election of Callistus III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
   Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
   Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.

PAPACY: A. D. 1464.
   Election of Paul II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
   The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
   Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
   The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.

   "The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held
   in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to
   inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and
   from that period down to the Reformation, it would be
   difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,
   wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.
   Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.
   with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.
   Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his
   nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest
   dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their
   aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom
   against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard
   della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was
   raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's
   pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in
   the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo
   de' Medici and his brother.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

   "This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the
   mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes
   gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian
   Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent
   VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.
   He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he
   did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had
   advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July
   25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo
   Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time
   exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he
   assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered
   the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all
   but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a
   rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a
   load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for
   flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope
   Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman
   citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in
   Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178._

   Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
   debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
   shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
   the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
   forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
   revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
   because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
   hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
   least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
   Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
   for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
   at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
   ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
   in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
   not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
   monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
   almost all the monasteries of the town have become
   bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
   to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
   may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
   in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
   enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
{2442}
   Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
   bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
   young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
   how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
   gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
   the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
   in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
   security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
   death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
   presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
   with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
   was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
   that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
   that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
   during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
   ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
   'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
   a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
   killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
   under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
   face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
   strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
   you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
   their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
   presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
   devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
   ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
   smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
   is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."

      _H. A. Taine,
      History of English Literature,
      volume 1, pages 354-355._

   "It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name
   of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the
   Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred
   with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the
   crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly
   from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from
   the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the
   corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of
   hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his
   death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern
   nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when
   the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a
   Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it
   inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts
   which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently
   fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to
   demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the
   inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two
   conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme
   corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than
   his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,
   'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with
   extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave
   affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'
   His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions
   of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which
   had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,
   were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli
   observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the
   Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the
   Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,
   and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large
   European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the
   sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander
   also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram
   gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,
   Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'
   But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having
   sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his
   prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him
   sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and
   recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades
   against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the
   coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited
   Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who
   opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The
   fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the
   Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince
   Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of
   Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian
   powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000
   ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the
   only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in
   succession, after having been formally betrothed to two
   Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the
   memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,
   and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made
   her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at
   the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It
   seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her
   brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in
   Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests
   which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair
   port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],
   the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them
   in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of
   Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned
   wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their
   victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to
   contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 6._

   The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
   related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
   principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
   generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
   of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
   Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
   of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
   unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
   overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
   a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
   August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
   of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
   must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
{2443}
   But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
   ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
   illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
   condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
   Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
   authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
   that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
   week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
   demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
   the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
   that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
   that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
   was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
   the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
   authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
   were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
   ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
   whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
   Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
   either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
   ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
   contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
   says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
   first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
   the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
   attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
   the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
   and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
   could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
   12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
   doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
   was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
   any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
   There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
   of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
   who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
   is possible that poison may have been then administered which
   did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
   picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
   and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
   which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
   them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
   their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
   accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
   another—though not in itself impossible or even very
   improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
   direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
   does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
   designedly."

      _R. Garnett,
      The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
      (English Historical Review, April, 1894)._

   "Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no
   account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in
   1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the
   high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that
   Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,
   and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right
   be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He
   stamped the century with the impress of a powerful
   personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael
   Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.
   Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize
   the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the
   modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.
   No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of
   ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose
   was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;
   and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,
   who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and
   Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and
   by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare
   Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the
   largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,
   turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the
   peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from
   time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from
   Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while
   still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved
   Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League
   of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and
   who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.
   D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal
   authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …
   Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the
   Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old
   'Pontefice terribile.'"

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8)._

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy,
      book 5, chapters 3-17._

      _W. Gilbert,
      Lucrezia Borgia._

      _P. Villari,
      Life and Times of Machiavelli,
      introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);
      book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1493.
   The Pope's assumption of authority
   to give the New World to Spain.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.
   The condemnation of Savonarola.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).
   Election of Pius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).
   Election of Julius II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
   Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The Holy League against France.
   The pseudo-council at Pisa.
   Conquests of Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PAPACY: A. D. 1513.
   Election of Leo X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
   Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
   Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
   The Concordat of Bologna.
   Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

{2444}

PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
   Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
   and his financial expedients.
   The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.

   "The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of
   Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances
   he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views
   which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it
   absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of
   a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with
   money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary
   revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,
   immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to
   grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout
   Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of
   indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the
   same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to
   under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be
   expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the
   produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's
   Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the
   inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe
   in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of
   any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial
   speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion
   then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of
   indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's
   sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,
   that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the
   pope's family."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a
   relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the
   Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The
   doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction
   should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came
   the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.
   When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the
   canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to
   their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money
   in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with
   the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first
   the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.
   Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine
   forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a
   judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of
   conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the
   grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or
   pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary
   indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal
   penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the
   penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These
   penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence
   obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales
   and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory
   merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church
   through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the
   Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more
   needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,
   the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood
   alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or
   commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
   Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the
   temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head
   of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith
   from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had
   officially declared that souls already in purgatory are
   emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in
   behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way
   analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power
   that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished
   by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had
   grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,
   'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold
   only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by
   Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for
   the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a
   simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a
   stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from
   the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from
   the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered
   in the market for money."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 4._

   The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
   Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
   most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
   It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
   keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
   portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
   The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
   remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
   the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
   just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
   other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
   the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
   as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
   austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
   Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
   chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
   tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
   pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
   anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
   the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
   these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
   merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
   store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
   of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
   punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
   remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
   assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
   imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
   have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
   acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
   exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
   must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
   possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
   same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
   such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
   understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
   say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
   place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
{2445}
   Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
   the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
   indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
   or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
   motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
   and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
   an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
   subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
   ground for Luther's separation from the Church."

      _N. Wiseman,
      Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
      Practices of the Catholic Church,
      lecture 12._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.

   "In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had
   opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the
   cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a
   fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and
   offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of
   souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a
   handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,
   and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was
   approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:
   'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said
   the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The
   clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,
   the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men
   and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing
   lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of
   music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they
   could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The
   salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,
   the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet
   cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant
   followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this
   order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,
   and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the
   hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the
   temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;
   the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person
   especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who
   carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He
   wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing
   and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he
   had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a
   goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or
   Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He
   was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic
   commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had
   filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had
   acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …
   The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon
   it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began
   to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd
   whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people
   listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his
   harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and
   sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)
   has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.
   Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by
   which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit
   hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my
   privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved
   more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his
   discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence
   cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than
   that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead
   also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young
   man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and
   who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring
   horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give
   it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,
   pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The
   very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at
   the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from
   purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses
   heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising
   up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as
   'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.
   Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and
   the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were
   told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their
   sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it
   was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to
   make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring
   money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those
   who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to
   satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and
   it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,
   which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near
   the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached
   him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,
   and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.
   Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,
   according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,
   and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of
   the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in
   Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of
   prices."

      _J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,
      The Story of the! Reformation,
      part 1, chapter 6
      (or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. J. Spalding,
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 3._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
   His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
   The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
   The satisfaction of awakened Germany.

   "Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
   Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
   its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
   University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
   which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
   the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
   The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
   of the town, a little back from the main street.
{2446}
   This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
   years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
   now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
   pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
   for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
   the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
   As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
   their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
   gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
   what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
   thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
   him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
   to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
   festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
   displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
   town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
   ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
   indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
   palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
   All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
   church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
   that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
   palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
   Elector of Saxony."

      _F. Seebohm,
      The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
      part 2, chapter 3 (c)._

   "As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious
   and political, or financial, so also political events came in
   aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.
   Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence
   proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in
   his own dominions in his possession, with the determination
   not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,
   which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;
   the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had
   demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really
   was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects
   of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at
   length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now
   inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The
   sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his
   subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial
   grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were
   in any degree excited by the former; this it would be
   impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the
   facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more
   original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though
   these were important, as having their proper source in the
   general condition of Germany. The point whence the great
   events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the
   coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the
   interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable
   persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who
   dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and
   resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and
   the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;
   they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together
   by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk
   attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he
   did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …
   Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany
   from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage
   to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal
   satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public
   conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in
   it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most
   purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of
   literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was
   one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of
   the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the
   temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it
   sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of
   Rome."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther,
      part 3, chapter 1._

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.

PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
   The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.

   The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:

   "In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,
   a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
   Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin
   Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and
   of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that
   place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
   discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in
   their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

   1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'
   etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be
   penitence.

   2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
   is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
   under the ministry of priests.

   3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
   such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
   various mortifications of the flesh.

   4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
   self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
   our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

   5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any
   penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own
   authority, or by that of the canons.

   6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by
   declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or
   at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which
   eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly
   remain.

   7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
   subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
   representative the priest.

   8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and
   no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

   9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,
   in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the
   article of death and of necessity.

   10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
   case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
   purgatory.

   11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into
   the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while
   the bishops were asleep.

   12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,
   but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

{2447}

   13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead
   to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

   14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person
   necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the
   greater the fear it brings.

   15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say
   nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,
   since it is very near to the horror of despair.

   16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,
   almost despair, and peace of mind differ.

   17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be
   that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.

   18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any
   scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of
   the increase of charity.

   19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
   confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
   though we may be very sure of it.

   20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
   remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
   only of those imposed by himself.

   21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
   that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
   saved from all punishment.

   22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
   which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
   canons.

   23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
   anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
   perfect, that is, to very few.

   24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
   deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
   release from penalties.

   25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
   has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
   own parish, in particular.

   26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,
   not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this
   case) but by the way of suffrage.

   27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of
   purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.

   28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,
   avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the
   Church depends on the will of God alone.

   29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be
   redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints
   Severinus and Paschal.

   30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much
   less of the attainment of plenary remission.

   31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
   indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

   32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they
   are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned
   along with their teachers.

   33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
   pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
   which man is reconciled to God.

   34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
   to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
   human appointment.

   35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
   contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
   purgatory or buy confessional licences.

   36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
   plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
   pardon.

   37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
   in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
   God, even without letters of pardon.

   38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no
   means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a
   declaration of the Divine remission.

   39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
   theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the
   people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true
   contrition.

   40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the
   ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or
   at least gives occasion for them to do so.

   41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
   lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
   before other good works of charity.

   42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
   Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
   to works of mercy.

   43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
   man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
   pardons.

   44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the
   man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not
   become better, but only freer from punishment.

   45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in
   need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not
   purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the
   anger of God.

   46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have
   superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary
   for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish
   it on pardons.

   47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to
   buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

   48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting
   pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer
   should be made for him, than that money should be readily
   paid.

   49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are
   useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most
   hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.

   50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were
   acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
   would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to
   ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,
   and bones of his sheep.

   51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,
   so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if
   necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own
   money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons
   extract money.

   52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,
   even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his
   own soul for them.

   53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order
   that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter
   silence in other churches.

   54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,
   an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.

   55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,
   which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single
   bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,
   which is a very great matter, should be preached with a
   hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
   ceremonies.

   56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants
   indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among
   the people of Christ.

{2448}

   57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,
   for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,
   by many of the preachers.

   58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for
   these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to
   the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer
   man.

   59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the
   poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the
   word in his time.

   60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
   the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
   treasure.

   61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone
   sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved
   cases.

   62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the
   glory and grace of God.

   63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
   because it makes the first to be last.

   64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
   acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.

   65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
   old they fished for the men of riches.

   66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now
   fish for the riches of men.

   67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to
   be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards
   the promotion of gain.

   68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the
   grace of God and the piety of the cross.

   69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries
   of apostolic pardons with all reverence.

   70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their
   eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not
   preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

   71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
   him be anathema and accursed.

   72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
   wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,
   let him be blessed.

   73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind
   of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.

   74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those
   who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the
   injury of holy charity and of truth.

   75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they
   could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had
   violated the Mother of God, is madness.

   76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take
   away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

   77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could
   grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and
   the Pope.

   78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
   has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
   of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).

   79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
   Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
   blasphemy.

   80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such
   discourses to have currency among the people, will have to
   render an account.

   81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy
   thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to
   the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen
   questionings of the laity.

   82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for
   the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of
   souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems
   an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal
   thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a
   very slight reason?

   83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for
   the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or
   permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this
   purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already
   redeemed?

   84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in
   that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy
   of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not
   redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,
   on account of its own need?

   85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since
   abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by
   usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting
   of indulgences, as if they were full of life?

   86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day
   more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build
   the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than
   with that of poor believers?

   87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,
   through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission
   and participation?

   88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the
   Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these
   remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one
   of the faithful?

   89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,
   that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the
   letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally
   efficacious.

   90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by
   force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to
   expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their
   enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

   91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and
   mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with
   ease; nay, would not exist.

   92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
   Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.

   93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
   Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.

   94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
   their head through pains, deaths, and hells.

   95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
   rather than in the security of peace."

      _H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
      First Principles of the Reformation,
      page 6-13._

PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
   Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
   gained ground.
   The Bull "Exurge Domine."
   Excommunication of Luther.
   The imperial summons from Worms.

   "It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a
   prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a
   devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and
   had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for
   which he had given large sums of money. His attention,
   however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and
   he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an
   ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment
   at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully
   increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic
   quite into the shade. …
{2449}
   As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in
   his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as
   much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his
   limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking
   any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to
   prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt
   entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also
   favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have
   been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The
   Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance
   of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded
   either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at
   Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di
   Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet
   dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the
   preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,
   stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,
   and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector
   Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,
   which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished
   professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed
   his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by
   impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg
   to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal
   Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived
   from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg
   on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from
   the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …
   Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,
   October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent
   that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at
   first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,
   demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to
   appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and
   threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of
   Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His
   patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of
   October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a
   postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well
   dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick
   complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,
   and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at
   least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's
   prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At
   length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an
   intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.
   Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of
   strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,
   who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the
   university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at
   Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with
   the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull
   dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or
   his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of
   indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired
   effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von
   Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and
   Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the
   present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,
   as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through
   Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the
   people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the
   Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …
   Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an
   interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to
   promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint
   were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to
   address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd
   1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that
   his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly
   declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and
   authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he
   considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …
   The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was
   broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged
   Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of
   Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed
   by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in
   motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had
   to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature
   sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,
   Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans
   Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour
   the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester
   von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their
   castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg
   declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to
   protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more
   convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …
   Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since
   the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many
   of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any
   longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or
   even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no
   rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his
   boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to
   moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther
   sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his
   language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable
   letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication
   to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just
   alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous
   Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,
   June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,
   condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's
   works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,
   if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him
   to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published
   treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he
   was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all
   princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his
   adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave
   them shelter were threatened with an interdict.
{2450}
   The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in
   North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …
   On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking
   that final step which rendered it impossible for him to
   recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of
   Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of
   professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands
   to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,
   together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of
   Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther
   and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with
   bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his
   writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms
   which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who
   succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's
   books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,
   the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of
   such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had
   already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they
   recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and
   interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.
   … In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor
   issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to
   appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied
   with a safe conduct."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
      book 5, chapter 3;
      book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2)._

      _J. E. Darras,
      History of the Church,
      7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 6, chapter 4._

PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
   Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.

   Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or
   Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and
   his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church
   at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so
   extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a
   providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second
   instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the
   same means which had been employed to produce the first. One
   Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a
   Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of
   indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He
   preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same
   trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same
   clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political
   freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general
   disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at
   Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade
   of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson
   and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the
   necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present
   his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely
   on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of
   Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and
   immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude
   the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion
   to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of
   Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From
   Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the
   excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.
   Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in
   rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;
   and so successfully did he support the instruction of the
   Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the
   personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined
   not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A
   deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical
   legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the
   Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart
   from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps
   towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at
   the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed
   a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the
   misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,
   with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as
   might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those
   indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so
   far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,
   should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …
   But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an
   episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to
   invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,
   with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his
   adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free
   preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the
   beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object
   to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character
   of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them
   to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding
   was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book
   of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively
   treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by
   next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles
   of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification
   by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to
   draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a
   pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the
   covenant of their redemption. … His success was so
   considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as
   2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the
   chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following
   year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and
   ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices
   and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines
   only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,
   and apostolical epistles."

      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

{2451}

   "With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal
   in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek
   free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks
   to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and
   the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This
   step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of
   the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military
   contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began
   to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,
   celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,
   1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening
   of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of
   the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of
   Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had
   invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and
   clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of
   reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion
   initiated the practical consequences of the reformed
   doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.
   Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was
   conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a
   far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest
   approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne
   Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),
   and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst
   priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping
   changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of
   mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far
   beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar
   pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called
   forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of
   the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …
   Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under
   government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish
   gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an
   enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves
   ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church
   was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and
   placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a
   clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,
   hospitals, and poorhouses."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland,
      chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Stebbing,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapter 7 (volume l)._

      _C. Beard,
      The Reformation
      (Hibbert Lectures, 1883).
      lecture 7._

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.
      History of the Reformation,
      books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3)._

      _M. J. Spalding.
      History of the Protestant Reformation,
      part 2, chapter 5._

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 7, chapters 1-3._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
   Luther before the Diet at Worms.
   His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
   His translation of the Bible.

   "On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther
   set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with
   three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat
   of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to
   order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way
   the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if
   he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are
   as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the
   house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the
   truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the
   Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the
   university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and
   honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he
   preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had
   protested against the appearance in the Diet of an
   excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the
   safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said
   that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on
   the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a
   fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which
   it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that
   if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal
   Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such
   matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart
   entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed
   and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were
   all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.
   As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls
   blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by
   him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few
   assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that
   he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to
   favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate
   in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.
   The presence in which he found himself would have tried the
   nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,
   with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the
   archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the
   only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and
   barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their
   sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,
   George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he
   passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he
   said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man
   whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is
   right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not
   forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was
   brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,
   asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to
   retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He
   answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other
   question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His
   first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was
   allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he
   had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and
   collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman
   against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said
   firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple
   Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could
   not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had
   tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as
   excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he
   retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third
   sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been
   too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but
   would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his
   answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in
   German.
{2452}
   There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken
   disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at
   the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special
   points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He
   required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The
   taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his
   reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has
   neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have
   erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I
   submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can
   do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.
   Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before
   the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was
   supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a
   dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had
   been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not
   permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his
   lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he
   cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be
   struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same
   evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he
   had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,
   he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now
   dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the
   day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther
   home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church
   required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that
   further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was
   allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the
   infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the
   infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon
   Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The
   Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide
   upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,
   would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the
   Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer
   able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should
   disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him
   should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian
   Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed
   men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and
   carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing
   by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some
   captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the
   Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was
   as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the
   8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under
   the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air
   invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he
   came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at
   Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He
   dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he
   let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,
   deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the
   scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut
   illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in
   hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like
   schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries
   dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there
   was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were
   adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in
   Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was
   all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need
   of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;
   but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to
   retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he
   bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was
   able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear
   vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the
   beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the
   New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the
   Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him
   word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he
   returned finally to his home and his friends. The New
   Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at
   once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was
   taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly
   finished."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Luther: a Short Biography,
      pages 28-35._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Waddington,
      History of the Reformation,
      chapters 13-14 (volume 1)._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      _C. Beard,
      Martin Luther and the Reformation,
      chapter 9._

      _J. Köstlin,
      Life of Luther,
      part 3, chapter 9._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
   Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
   Hesitation of Francis I.
   His final persecution of the Reformers.

   "The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
   of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
   Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
   feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
   The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
   Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
   Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
   doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
   Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
   Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
   But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
   Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
   awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
   which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
   especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
   numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
   visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
   they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
   was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
   'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
   concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
   to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
   hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
   impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
   found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
   studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
   might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
   Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
   every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
   orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
   persecution.
{2453}
   Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
   learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
   the traditional theology. The Father of the French
   Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
   any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
   Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
   University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
   put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
   on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
   his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
   a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
   signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
   near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
   justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
   and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
   polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
   from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
   of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
   One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
   same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
   evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
   Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
   when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
   and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
   dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
   which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
   Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
   with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
   Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
   pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
   individual might interpret for himself, and declared
   justification to be through faith alone, without human works
   or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
   Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
   to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
   either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
   of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
   condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
   acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
   within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
   recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
   the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
   Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
   the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
   mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
   Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
   contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
   mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
   acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
   death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
   was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
   behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
   Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
   Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
   principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
   professors. …

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].

   The drift of her influence appears in the character of her
   daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,
   and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret
   immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis
   I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters
   gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the
   Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained
   the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the
   head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his
   mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the
   leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to
   conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by
   the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave
   a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,
   composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.
   Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de
   Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of
   Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown
   into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him
   from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin
   was hanged and burned.

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 8._

   "Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the
   preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious
   tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.
   In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was
   posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own
   chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the
   heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …
   Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his
   disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,
   unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a
   diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious
   document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,
   and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were
   put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist
   outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme
   cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It
   was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of
   January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and
   to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that
   Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A
   timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France
   [1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might
   lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva
   [1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,
   he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous
   Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and
   carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,
   but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had
   no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses
   himself."

      _R. Heath,
      The Reformation in France,
      book 1, chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._

      _R. T. Smith,
      The Church in France,
      chapter 12._

PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.
   Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

{2454}

PAPACY: A. D. 1522.
   Election of Adrian VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
   The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
   and its systematic organization.
   The two diets of Nuremberg.
   The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
   The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.

   "Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented
   from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,
   by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war
   with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,
   and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a
   continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance
   from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint
   president of the council of regency, the administration of
   affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in
   the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the
   crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the
   empire was left to the council of regency, of which several
   members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of
   these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome
   the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are
   exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the
   court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,
   by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical
   chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the
   corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic
   confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and
   members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the
   arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more
   the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid
   increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of
   Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to
   the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of
   Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,
   principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the
   edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and
   addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely
   censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into
   execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and
   moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of
   the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same
   time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the
   corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils
   which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a
   reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The
   members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,
   advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the
   reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred
   grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,
   and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would
   procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted
   them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was
   framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of
   persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with
   patience the determination of a free council, forbade the
   diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and
   subjected all publications to the approbation of men of
   learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it
   declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had
   quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they
   were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
   liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of
   their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans
   derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as
   the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by
   the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period
   they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,
   and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were
   enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.
   They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict
   of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …
   Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the
   doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without
   exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was
   persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a
   regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the
   service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,
   and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few
   innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.
   To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the
   ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their
   administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his
   writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this
   judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision
   for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;
   for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and
   widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;
   and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn
   against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,
   though not established with the public approbation of the
   elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be
   considered as the first institution of a reformed system of
   worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the
   example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the
   Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes
   were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the
   second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,
   canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress
   through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the
   Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although
   under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of
   regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make
   his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his
   dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …
   Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding
   diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The
   recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of
   Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the
   former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to
   obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,
   entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of
   Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of
   Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for
   enforcing the edict of Worms.
{2455}
   At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate
   published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but
   these being confined to points of minor importance, and
   regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,
   and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this
   formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of
   the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive
   innovations, which followed each other with wonderful
   rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,
   was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly
   espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system
   recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,
   was introduced by his authority, and declared the established
   religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up
   an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes
   who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding
   year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession
   of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his
   emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by
   espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble
   lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and
   taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the
   elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse
   Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil
   and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,
   and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,
   Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and
   others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,
   grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his
   vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran
   tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,
   secularised Eastern Prussia."

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 28 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2)._

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
      books 10-13 (volume 2)._

      _L. Häusser,
      The Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 5-6._

PAPACY: A. D. 1523.
   Election of Clement VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
   The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
   and the king of France.
   Imperial revenge.
   The sack of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.

PAPACY: A. D. 1524.
   Institution of the Order of the Theatines.

      See THEATINES.

PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
   The League of Torgau.
   Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
   The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
   rise to the name "Protestants."

   "At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an
   assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of
   ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand
   from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points
   in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,
   and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to
   deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.
   The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the
   majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in
   an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to
   prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out
   between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to
   offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by
   letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to
   drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In
   consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of
   Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive
   league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several
   Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of
   Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that
   appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In
   the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed
   the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous
   preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm
   throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by
   the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which
   Clement was the leading promoter.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

   This changed the imperial policy in reference to the
   Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved
   that, until the meeting of a general council, every state
   should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer
   to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to
   stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of
   the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act
   according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest
   importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great
   landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of
   the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating
   the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of
   Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For
   several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of
   years the position of Charles with respect to France and the
   Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to
   embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now
   that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the
   Catholic party revived its policy of repression."

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Reformation,
      chapter 4._

   "While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
   new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
   themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
   of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
   position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
   would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
   in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
   defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
   enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
   further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
   innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
   assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
   paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
   but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
   Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
   Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
   were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour
   … the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
   notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
   renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
   murmur. …
{2456}
   The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
   about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
   Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
   and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
   and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
   Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
   protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
   in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
   little active support from him. These were inflexibly
   determined that the decree of the majority should not be
   assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
   the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
   Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
   Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
   Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
   Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
   entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
   were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
   that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
   Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
   world."

      _P. Bayne,
      Martin Luther, his Life and Work,
      book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      books 4-5 (volumes 2-3)._

      _J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation,
      book 10, chapter 14,
      and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4)._

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 311 (volume 3)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.
   The rupture with England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
   The Diet at Augsburg.
   Presentation and condemnation of the
   Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The breach with the Reformation complete.

   "In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy
   quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,
   determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question
   of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,
   and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the
   general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished
   from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom
   would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished
   from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the
   princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be
   confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the
   enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom
   there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him
   at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear
   at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific
   Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he
   continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,
   conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of
   convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered
   advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of
   Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with
   ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant
   ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of
   effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at
   a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly
   irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had
   frequently had recourse to conferences and to public
   disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every
   effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the
   bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so
   doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the
   period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and
   disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would
   never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:
   'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile
   the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,
   the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that
   we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and
   that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the
   truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:
   'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of
   reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be
   reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice
   both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,
   unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were
   required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn
   up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
   was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical
   princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,
   and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as
   the Augsburg Confession.

      _J. Michelet,
      Life of Luther,
      (translated by W. Hazlitt),
      book 3, chapter 1._

   "A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the
   Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had
   severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,
   that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the
   emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,
   and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and
   the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of
   the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the
   afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the
   imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The
   reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it
   produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous
   voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the
   musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the
   Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to
   Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the
   Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a
   "Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a
   public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which
   the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves
   fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to
   disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the
   ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we
   shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our
   coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church
   require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of
   the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general
   alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately
   entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly
   quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted
   points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven
   Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward
   and defend the views of their respective parties."
{2457}
   Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology
   for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an
   answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The
   Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the
   emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many
   more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the
   emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that
   fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an
   edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the
   Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable
   arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he
   went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails
   for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;
   for, as we very well know from past experience, were such
   doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the
   earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to
   consider their future course of action, we grant them from
   this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On
   the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking
   in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and
   deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is
   extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your
   doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion
   true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,
   including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors
   of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant
   princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th
   of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to
   the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a
   Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the
   more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in
   repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been
   secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were
   daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations
   to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,
   of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.
   The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,
   and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of
   Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The
   decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had
   anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it
   to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and
   that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full
   extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's
   brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep
   offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their
   determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor
   until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.
   Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance
   offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on
   March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to
   remain faithful for a period of six years."

      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 312 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Worsley,
      Life of Luther,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      _F. A. Cox,
      Life of Melancthon,
      chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession")._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
   Protestant League of Smalkalde and
   alliance with the king of France.
   The Pacification of Nuremberg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533.
   Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,
   for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
   Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
   The Catholic Holy League.
   Preparations for war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534.
   Election of Paul III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.
   Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.

   "A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History
   of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular
   epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part
   of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained
   nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of
   the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that
   this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two
   objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely
   blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the
   recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early
   successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous
   endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing
   her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],
   within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious
   war of the century.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

   Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the
   Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate
   contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal
   establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency
   devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,
   and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under
   conditions excluding from its programme the task of
   conciliation."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter Reformation,
      pages vii-viii._

   "I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the
   reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the
   German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had
   fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled
   the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it
   regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously
   lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of
   the world-wide movement which is termed the
   Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the
   Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more
   powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain
   and the extinction of national independence, than at any
   previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its
   prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At
   the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw
   themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this
   Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits
   and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus
   able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only
   partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of
   Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,
   it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the
   Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius
   III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,
   and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly
   notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we
   are aware of a completely altered Italy."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1)._

{2458}

PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
   Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
   Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
   Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
   The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.

   "The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in
   Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no
   cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the
   hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the
   lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was
   looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did
   not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic
   school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not
   spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had
   everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual
   revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first
   eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even
   in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less
   followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo
   and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann
   Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely
   families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were
   inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without
   followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was
   surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of
   Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;
   between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and
   conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely
   entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be
   better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable
   part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which
   was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then
   still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in
   favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further
   than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be
   adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the
   revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one
   result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a
   council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the
   Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors
   had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,
   this concession was the least that could be demanded. At
   length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,
   1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was
   the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in
   Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the
   supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but
   the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,
   was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The
   intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the
   council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was
   determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the
   Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the
   Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred
   in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish
   and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was
   decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course
   of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those
   questions on which agreement between the parties was possible
   should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on
   which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.
   Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and
   Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If
   these questions were considered first, the attendance of the
   Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open
   the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in
   considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at
   least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might
   influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they
   were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to
   pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those
   questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,
   and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible
   heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the
   authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,
   ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the
   doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which
   the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all
   other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these
   questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not
   precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the
   stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main
   the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected
   which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …
   Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time
   of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of
   1547, the following were the main points decided on:

   1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better
   schools.

   2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.

   3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their
   duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary
   qualifications for the office of a bishop.

   Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
   Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
   abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
   teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
   Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
   opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
   understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
   meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
   Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
   German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
   fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
   was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
   the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
   the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
   and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
   died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
   by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
   council, as Pope Julius III.
{2459}
   The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
   in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
   assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
   were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
   affairs in 1552.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.

   After that there was no further thought of an understanding
   with the heretics. The results for reform were very small
   indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh
   adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in
   March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected
   as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was
   succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was
   the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed
   in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was
   not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a
   complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough
   exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest
   men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no
   further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,
   of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was
   he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He
   established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the
   first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the
   interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the
   answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no
   longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set
   her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the
   council stood still." But in answer to demands from several
   Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next
   Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the
   Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,
   1562. Then began the important period of the council, during
   which the legislation to which it has given a name was
   enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the
   remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the
   council should be considered a continuation of the previous
   ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the
   Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of
   coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to
   interdict books and arrange an Index. …

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.

   The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was
   the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great
   achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic
   Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one
   consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been
   variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight
   of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were
   replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;
   a uniformity was established in matters of faith and
   discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable
   bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the
   tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established
   upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was
   torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,
   1563, 18 years after its opening.

      _L. Häusser,
      Period of the Reformation,
      chapters 19 and 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapters 2-3 (volume l)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      books 2-3 (volume l)._

      _L. F. Bungener,
      History of the Council of Trent._

      _T. R. Evans,
      The Council of Trent._

      _A. de Reumont,
      The Carafas of Maddaloni,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   [IMAGE: Map of CENTRAL EUROPE
   AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
   AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
   SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
   VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
   GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
   ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
   STATES OF THE CHURCH.]

   [IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
   SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.
   LUTHERAN.
   ZWINGLIAN.
   CALVINIST.
   UNITED BRETHREN.
   CATHOLIC.
   LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
   DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.
   GREEK.
   MOHAMMEDAN.]

PAPACY: A. D. 1540.
   The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
   Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
   of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
   The Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PAPACY: A. D. 1550.
   Election of Julius III.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).
   Election of Marcellus II.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).
   Election of Paul IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
   The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
   Attachment and subserviency to Spain.

   Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,
   was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of
   Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions
   of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and
   impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,
   unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish
   greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the
   galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy
   of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable
   as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now
   become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction
   to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the
   arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the
   protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.
   [1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his
   persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the
   establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself
   filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in
   the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that
   vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to
   the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long
   series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his
   death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the
   following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and
   died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban
   VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the
   papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose
   pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of
   the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and
   religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,
   of re-establishing the independence of their see, they
   maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal
   bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the
   protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low
   Countries, of France, and of Germany."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

   "The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves
   against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant
   Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but
   passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure
   them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be
   affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again
   manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the
   spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance
   with the demands of the times.
{2460}
   The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe
   were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted
   them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she
   renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.
   … The influence of the restored Catholic system was first
   established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not
   accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish
   Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;
   every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But
   at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which
   renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were
   peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also
   attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of
   the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of
   all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a
   Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a
   sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected
   every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however
   not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote
   times, and more especially since the regulations established
   by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an
   ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal
   authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;
   deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to
   govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king
   appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the
   Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all
   his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could
   not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The
   extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused
   the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself
   bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip
   in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate
   influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was
   far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings
   of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered
   to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual
   princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were
   also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made
   their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the
   peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still
   remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a
   powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet
   been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of
   the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland
   the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old
   faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese
   or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the
   peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and
   Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained
   faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this
   pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among
   nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more
   minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the
   Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy
   resumed a position in which it could once more gain the
   mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly
   to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still
   possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the
   externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.
   In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even
   gained an accession of that authority which it had been the
   purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had
   strengthened their influence over the national churches; they
   had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had
   formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They
   attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and
   without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced
   by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,
   the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently
   to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the
   interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time
   essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus
   strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,
   and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the
   popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had
   hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of
   assailants."

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 5, section 2 (volume 1)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1559.
   Election of Pius IV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
   The institution of the Index.

   "The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal
   authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously
   issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,
   valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of
   Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius
   IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of
   Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial
   revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which
   various authorities were responsible, the most important among
   them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of
   Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great
   printing trade of Venice."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter-Reformation,
      chapter 2._

PAPACY: A. D. 1566.
   Election of Pius V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
   Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
   Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).
   Election of Gregory XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
   Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
   Election of Sixtus V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
   The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).
   Election of Urban VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).
   Election of Gregory XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
   Election of Innocent IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
   Election of Clement VIII.

{2461}

PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.

   "The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation
   of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the
   16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in
   extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,
   in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated
   the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious
   line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate
   representative of his house, whom he designed for his
   successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a
   natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and
   Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,
   without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the
   former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now
   encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare
   that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este
   reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the
   legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso
   II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself
   to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and
   formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the
   indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to
   retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his
   ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as
   imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently
   assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy
   of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,
   had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon
   became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its
   industrious population and commercial riches; its
   architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern
   aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which
   literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its
   sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).
   Election of Leo XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).
   Election of Paul V.

PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
   The conflict with Venice.
   Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
   Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
   Half a century of unimportant history.

   "Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the
   papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These
   speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,
   especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude
   of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes
   [growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of
   secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by
   the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the
   papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent
   differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The
   defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church
   affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra
   Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.
   Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians
   [1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard
   the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were
   the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to
   leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the
   pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity
   to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain
   were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the
   papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation
   of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.
   The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian
   territory for another half-century. This was the first serious
   reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

   The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
   Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
   Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
   and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
   a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
   first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
   (1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
   himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
   Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
   The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
   was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
   power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
   when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
   he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
   Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
   Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
   papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
   attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
   addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
   1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
   Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
   met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
   Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
   Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
   induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
   aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
   completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
   treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent
   X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,
   1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;
   Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of
   very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
   important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
   latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
   and the relations with Louis XIV."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7;
      period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4)._

      _T. A. Trollope,
      Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

      _A. Robertson,
      Fra Paolo Sarpi._

PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
   Election of Gregory XV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
   Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
   [Transcriber's note:
   2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]

   Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
   February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
   shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
   heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
   College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
   is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
   virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
   with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
   were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
   the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
   with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
   contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
   it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
   acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
   Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
   philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
   grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
   mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
   splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
   Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
   'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
   study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
   to every nation on the globe."

      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
   Election of Urban VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
   The Valtelline War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
   Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
   Growth of Nepotism.

   Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
   actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
   reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
   That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
   share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
   hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
   large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
   Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
   was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
   Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
   Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
   Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
   the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
   that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
   in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
   Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
   of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
   seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
   able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
   the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
   Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
   abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
   streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
   military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
   in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
   the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
   though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
   energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
   brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
   his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
   ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
   out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
   itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
   The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
   from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
   she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
   arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
   her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
   daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
   having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
   renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
   The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
   Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
   ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
   the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
   deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
   and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
   days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
   dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
   interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
   [VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
   and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
   first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
   allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
   loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
   established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
   the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
   his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
   Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
   with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
   consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
   unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
   who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
   discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
   further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
   leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
   from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
   cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
   secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
   advisers."

      _G. Trevor,
      Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
      pages 416-418._

PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
   The Hostility of Mazarin and France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
   The first condemnation of Jansenism.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
   Election of Clement IX.

PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
   Election of Clement X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
   Election of Innocent XI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
   Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.

   "It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
   papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
   and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
   limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
   hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
   prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
   pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
   clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
   clergy of France did support their king without scruple
   against the pope. The declarations they published were from
   year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
   authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
   'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
   ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
   was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
   by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
   manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
   assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
   example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
   the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
   pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
{2463}
   But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
   imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
   pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
   is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
   assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
   kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
   was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
   declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
   authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
   unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
   of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
   the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
   threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
   exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
   of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
   in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
   a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
   who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
   still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
   declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
   preferred by the king before all other candidates for
   episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
   spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
   sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
   venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
   complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
   Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
   extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
   he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
   perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
   service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
   Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
   this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
   conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
   methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
   temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
   arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
   with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
   forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
   ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
   but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
   easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
   abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
   the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
   chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
   Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
   ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
   had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
   king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
   general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
   nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
   had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
   Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
   approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
   had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
   excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
   thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
   a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
   fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
   refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
   for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
   the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
   the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
   all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
   Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
   menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
   opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
   had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
   Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
   Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
   compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
   the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
   XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
   ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
   August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
   the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
   negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
   French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
   pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
   purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
   Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
   XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
   for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
   proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
   fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
   discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
   considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
   'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
   our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
   until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
   accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
   only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
   retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
   perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
   prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
   monarchs."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 8, section 16 (volume 2)._

PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
   Election of Alexander VIII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
   Election of Innocent XII.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
   Election of Clement XI.

PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
   Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
   Declining Powers.

   The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
   show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
   Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
   laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
   of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
   and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
   which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
   about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
   issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
   splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
   Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
   France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
   Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
   through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
   He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
   concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
   which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
   and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
   Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
   exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
   terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
   of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
   mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
   the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

   The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
   Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
   of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
   Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
   Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
   of Naples

      See
      GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

   The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
   position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
   very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
   in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
   undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
   his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
   to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
   the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
   [see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
   dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
   occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
   that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
   palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
   to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
   it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
   fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
   that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
   over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
   it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
   which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
   sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
   further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
   the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
   anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
   Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
   and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
   seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
   other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
   eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
   The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
   which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
   death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
   led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
   the great events which during the eighteenth century were
   agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
   victories."

      _A. R. Pennington,
      Epochs of the Papacy,
      chapter 10._

PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
   The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
   Election of Innocent XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
   Election of Benedict XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
   Election of Clement XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
   Election of Benedict XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
   Election of Clement XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
   Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
   Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
   Election of Clement XIV.

PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
   Suppression of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
   Election of Pius VI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
   Founding of the Roman Episcopate
   in the United States of America.

   In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
   in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
   Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
   bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
   Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
   their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
   Bardstown, in Kentucky."

      _J. A. Russell,
      The Catholic Church in the United States
      (History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
      pages 16-18)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Revolution at Avignon.
   Reunion of the Province with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
   First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
   Treaty of Tolentino.
   Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
   Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French occupation of Rome.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Removal of the Pope.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
   Election of Pius VII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
   The Concordat with Napoleon.
   Its Ultramontane influence.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.

PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
   Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
   Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
   French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
   Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
   The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.

   Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
   tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
   resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
   obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
   plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
   Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
   his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
   of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
   as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
   was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
   predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
   agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
   of Rome and the Roman State."

      _H. Martin,
      Popular History of France, since 1789,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

{2465}

   In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
   possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
   resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
   Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
   capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
   St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
   dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
   imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
   Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
   ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
   nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
   Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
   actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
   war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
   Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
   interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
   Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
   be interrupted by a hostile power.'"

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 51 (volume 11)._

   "The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
   paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
   cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
   disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
   of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
   commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
   carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
   decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
   the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
   States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
   city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
   should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
   enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
   decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
   protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
   and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
   complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
   excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
   of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
   without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
   first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
   which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
   wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
   temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
   of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
   VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
   renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
   the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
   where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
   been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
   spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
   February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
   eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
   ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
   at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
   oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
   refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
   then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
   measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
   commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
   to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
   wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
   more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
   rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
   appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
   Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
   imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
   temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
   assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
   pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
   articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
   even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
   offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
   that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
   he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
   charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
   Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
   winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
   time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
   English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
   emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
   unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
   day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
   but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
   They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
   who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
   also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
   was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
   June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
   arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
   receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
   time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
   journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
   they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
   Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
   Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
   Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
   Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
   a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
   1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
   without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
   out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
   either because he repented not having finished with them at
   Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
   more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
   done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
   negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
   were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
   had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
   prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
   the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
   of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
   incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
   with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
   evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
   pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
   cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
   prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
   was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
{2466}
   On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
   Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
   unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
   Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
   induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
   the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
   him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
   a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
   On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
   signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
   usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
   treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
   the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
   Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
   should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
   domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
   and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
   income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
   whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
   be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
   re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
   that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
   the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
   bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
   and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
   revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
   sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
   time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
   bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
   as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
   Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
   and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
   of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
   bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
   and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
   with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
   occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
   that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
   been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
   bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
   exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
   on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
   repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
   Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
   must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
   was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
   made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
   preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
   nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
   arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
   premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
   regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
   which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
   1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
   the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
   any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
   it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
   other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
   January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
   it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
   ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
   archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
   of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
   tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
   momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
   returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
   for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
   which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
   irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
   campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
   times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
   Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
   when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
   pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
   Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
   who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
   States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
   indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
   re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
   brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
   was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
   announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
   part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
   Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
   all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
   April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
   entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."

      _Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Silvagni,
      Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
      chapters 35-39 (volume 2)._

      _C. Botta,
      Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
      chapters 5-8._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12._

      _Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
      Captain Bingham,
      volumes 2-3._

      _Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
      volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l)._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 13 and 16._

PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
   Restoration of the Jesuits.

         See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.

PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the Papal States.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
   Election of Leo XII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
   Election of Pius VIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
   Election of Gregory XVI.

PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Election of Pius IX.
   His liberal reforms.
   Revolution at Rome.
   The Pope's flight.
   His restoration by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

{2467}

PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
   Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.

   "The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
   official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
   faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
   priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
   their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
   some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
   her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
   it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
   nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
   him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
   policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar
   Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
   1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
   appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
   of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
   Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
   Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
   Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
   persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
   awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
   the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
   restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
   … The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
   vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
   immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
   about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
   two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
   vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
   abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
   the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
   re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
   England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
   Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
   Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
   London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
   it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
   him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
   publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
   effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
   the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
   continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
   by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
   England, who for so many years have been separated from the
   see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
   the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
   Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
   punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
   prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
   moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
   denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
   aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
   inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
   our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
   the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
   occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
   to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
   ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
   declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
   maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
   so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
   as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
   Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
   'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
   the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
   assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
   of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
   them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
   void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
   them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
   Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
   Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
   but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
   forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
   merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
   territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
   Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
   some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
   milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
   but it was never put into execution.

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 23 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN.:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      _J. Stoughton,
      Religion in England, 1800-1850,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
   Promulgation of the Dogma of the
   Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

   "The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
   and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
   Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
   pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
   Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
   primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
   seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
   council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
   freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
   Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
   even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
   in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
   is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
   correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
   the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
   the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
   the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
   the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
   universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
   faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
   the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
   determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
   long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
   were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
   greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
   bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
   robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
   where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
   after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
   proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
   Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
   Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
   our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
   which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
   of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
   Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
   Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
   original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
   firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
   Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
   otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
   understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
   they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
   from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
   they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
   if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
   writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
   sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
   in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
   the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
   bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
   8th."

      _A. de Montor,
      The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
      volume 2, pages 924-926._

PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
   First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
   Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
   The Encyclical and the Syllabus.

   "On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
   [a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the
   Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
   throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
   Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
   condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
   The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
   set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
   1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
   2. Moderated Rationalism;
   3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
   4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
      Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
   5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
   6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
   as in its relations with the Church;
   7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
   8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
   9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
   10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.

   Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
   and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
   Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
   Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
   Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
   pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
   excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
   the enemies of the Church."

      _J. N. Murphy,
      The Chair of Peter,
      chapter 33._

   The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
   followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:

   To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
   Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
   we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
   blessing:

   You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
   vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
   charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
   the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
   unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
   sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
   the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
   salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
   pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
   it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
   vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
   were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
   by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
   condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
   heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
   the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
   and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
   serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
   into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
   predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
   the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
   their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
   promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
   by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
   the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
   destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
   hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
   inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
   corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
   finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
   as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
   raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
   mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
   most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
   evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
   caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
   accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
   following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
   raised our voice, and by the publication of several
   encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
   apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
   our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
   warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
   children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
   the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
   first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
   and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
   9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
   monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
   present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
   detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
   Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
   rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
   upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
   have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
   principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
   Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
   us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
   demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
   to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
   as from so many sources.
{2469}
   These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
   they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
   force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
   author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
   of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
   regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
   that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
   government which have always existed for the happiness and
   security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
   aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
   the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
   absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
   that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
   absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
   and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
   as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
   distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
   the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
   fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
   condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
   is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
   violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
   considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
   government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
   to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
   of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
   our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
   "Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
   man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
   law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
   entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
   neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
   their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
   or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
   rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
   that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
   Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
   conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
   struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
   human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
   Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
   culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
   Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
   government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
   revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
   therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
   and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
   right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
   entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
   to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
   by what is called public opinion or by other means,
   constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
   right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
   the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
   force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
   that human society, released from the ties of religion and
   true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
   and can follow no other law in its actions than the
   indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
   interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
   so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
   so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
   declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
   doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
   For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
   VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
   public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
   Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
   in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
   celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
   constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
   (Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
   their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
   church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
   "receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
   forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
   certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
   pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
   principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
   religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
   from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
   most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
   that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
   right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
   concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
   parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
   instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
   machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
   salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
   the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
   miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
   the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
   sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
   society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
   always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
   efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
   and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
   upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
   Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
   descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
   records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
   been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
   and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
   far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
   of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
   ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
   educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
   condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
   authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
   upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
   and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
   with regard to exterior order.
{2470}
   They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
   bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
   power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
   concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
   approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
   that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
   whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
   branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
   no force in those regions of the world where these
   associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
   likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
   Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
   invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
   seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
   attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
   nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
   temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
   demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
   temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
   theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
   civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
   religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
   have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
   principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
   perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
   not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
   power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
   can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
   essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
   in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
   doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
   See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
   of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
   the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
   the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
   faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
   Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
   sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
   supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
   see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
   diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
   duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
   religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
   confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
   have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
   apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
   generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
   specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
   be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
   children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
   venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
   and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
   spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
   books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
   surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
   are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
   and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
   excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
   Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
   persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
   eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
   which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
   impiety.

      _Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
      Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
      Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX._

I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.

   1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
   providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
   is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
   immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
   things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
   therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
   mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
   action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
   arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
   itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
   welfare of men and nations.

      (See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)

   4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
   strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
   by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
   truths of every kind.

      (See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
      and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
   the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
   progress of human reason.

      (See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
   divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
   the perfection of man.

      (See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
      and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
   books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
   Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
   books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
   Jesus Christ is himself a myth.

      (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.

   8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
   theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.

      (Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")

   9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
   the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
   instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
   and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
   abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
   as objective.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
      December 4, 1862.
      Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

{2471}

   10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
   it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
   the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
   philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.

      (Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
      December 11, 1862;
      and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

   11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
   with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
   errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
   correction.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

   12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
   congregation fetter the free progress of science.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)

   13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
   doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
   demands of the age and the progress of science.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
   supernatural revelation.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
   errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
   Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
   and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
   April 30, 1860.


III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.

   15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
   shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
   eternal salvation.

      (Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
      Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)

   17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
   have never been in the true church of Christ.

      (Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
      Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)

   18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
   same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
   pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.

      (Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)


IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,
BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.

   Pests of this description have been frequently
   rebuked in the severest terms in the
   Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
   Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
   Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
   Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
   Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.


V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.

   19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
   association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
   rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
   appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
   and limits within which the church may exercise authority.

      (Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
      "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
      "Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)

   20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
   without the toleration and assent of the civil government.

      (Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)

   21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
   that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
   religion.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
   does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
   articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
      December 21, 1863.)

   23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
   or any direct or indirect temporal power.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
   the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
   and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
   dogma and morals.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
   further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
   either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
   revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
   acquisition and possession.

      ("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
      Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)

   27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
   be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
   temporal affairs.

      (Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
   apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
   considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
   government.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
   derives its origin from civil law.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
   civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
   without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
      Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
   law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
   or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
   especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
   government.

      (Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
      "Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)

   33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
   any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
   matters of theology.

      (Letter to Archbishop Frising,
      "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)

   34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
   a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
   which prevailed in the middle ages.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

{2472}

   35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
   or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
   sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
   bishopric in another city.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
   subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
   matters shall remain as they are.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)

   37. National churches can be established without, and
   separated from, the Roman pontiff.

      (Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
      "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
   of the church in Eastern and Western churches.

   (Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)


VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES
AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.

   39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
   all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
   circumscribed by any limit.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
   and interests of society.

   (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
   Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

   41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
   sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
   religious affairs.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
   ought to prevail.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
   render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
   use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
   the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.

      (Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
      "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

   44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
   religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
   control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
   issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
   church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
   administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
   arrangements for their reception.

      ("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
      Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
   of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
   case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
   civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
   shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
   discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
   taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.

      (Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
      "Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)

   46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
   must be submitted to the civil authority.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
   that popular schools open without distinction to all children
   of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
   young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
   them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
   authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
   the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
   opinions common to the times.

      (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
      "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

   48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
   separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
   the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
   natural things and the objects of social life, may be
   perfectly approved by Catholics.

      (Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
      "Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)

   49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
   religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
   mutually with the Roman Pontiff.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
   presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
   possession of their diocese before having received canonical
   institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
   bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
   obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
   sees and the institution of bishops.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
      Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")

   52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
   church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
   sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
   admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
   religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
   government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
   religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
   deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
   collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
   goods to civil competence and administration.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
      "Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
      and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)

   54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
   of the church, but are superior to the church even in
   litigious questions of jurisdiction

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
   from the church.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)


VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.

   56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
   and there is no necessity that human laws should be
   conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
   from God.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
   may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
   matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
   of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
   riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
   every pleasure.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
      Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)

{2473}

   59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
   words, and all human facts have the force of right.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
   force.

      (Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)

   61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
   sanctity of right.

      (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
   observed.

      (Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)

   63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
   princes and to rise in insurrection against them.

      (Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
      Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
      Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
      Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)

   64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
   shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
   undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
   highest praise when done for the love of country.

   (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)


VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.

   65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
   marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
   contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
   only consists in the nuptial benediction.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
   and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
   pronounced by the civil authority.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
      Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
   impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
   can remove the existing hindrances.

      (Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)

   69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
   pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
   of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
   power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
   against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
   upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
   considered as emanating from borrowed power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
   nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
   appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
   be used in marriage.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
   chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)

   73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
   place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
   marriage contract between Christians must always be a
   sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
   not exist.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
      Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
      Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
      "Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)

   74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
   civil jurisdiction.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
      Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
   the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
   marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
   first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
   second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
   1851.


IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

   75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
   agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
   spiritual power.

      (Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)

   76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
   Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
   liberty of the church.

      (Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)

   N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
   and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
   all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
   government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
   abundantly explained in Allocutions,
      "Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
      and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
      Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
      Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
      "Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
      and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.

   77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
   Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
   State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.

      (Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)

   78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
   countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
   exercise of their own worship.

      (Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)

   79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
   worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
   publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
   more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
   to the propagation of the evil of indifference.

      (Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)

   80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
   and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.

      (Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)

   ----------Syllabus: End--------

PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
   Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

   "More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
   Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
   … He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
   Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
   centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
   was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
   Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
   the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
   once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
   forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
   Council convened. …
{2474}
   It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
   feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
   Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
   non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
   (September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
   auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
   the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
   Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
   it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
   to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
   prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
   before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
   doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
   attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
   liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
   proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
   binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
   come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
   rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
   justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
   preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
   was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
   the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
   pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
   the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
   Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
   July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
   proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
   October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
   1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
   extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
   on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
   the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
   with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
   stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
   Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
   the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
   the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
   ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
   twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
   in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
   all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
   of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
   Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
   attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
   predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
   Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
   Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
   of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
   Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
   of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
   viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
   Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
   diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
   Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
   continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
   Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
   the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
   was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
   180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
   vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
   States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
   had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
   35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
   8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
   disproportion between the representatives of the different
   nations and the number of their constituents was
   overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."

      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Vatican Council
      (appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
      American edition)._

   The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
   "showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
   modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
   congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
   dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
   that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
   to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
   dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
   the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
   the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
   This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
   bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
   mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
   Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
   alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
   Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
   in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
   Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
   till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
   its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
   negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
   Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
   opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
   the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
   declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
   again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
   Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
   was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
   made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
   the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
   faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
   support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
   held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
   the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
   German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
   the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
   Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
   members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
   They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
   month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
   the internal affairs of the Church."

      _Annual Register, 1870,
      part 1, foreign History, chapter 5._

{2475}
   But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
   possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
   of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
   opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
   end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
   ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
   those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
   disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
   position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
   itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
   19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
   by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
   retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
   paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
   Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
   together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
   of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
   testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
   moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
   Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
   at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
   formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
   the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
   University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
   six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
   assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
   … Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
   body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
   Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
   1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
   never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
   any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
   Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
   of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
   function. He always continued a strict observer of the
   disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
   Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
   that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
   had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
   by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
   property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
   each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
   Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
   van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
   in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
   Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
   of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
   Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
   of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
   some advance was recorded over these numbers."

      _Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
      volume 4, pages 213-216._

      ALSO IN:
      _Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
      Letters from Rome on the Council._

      _Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
      The Pope and the Council._

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees._

      _H. E. Manning,
      The Vatican Council._

      _Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
      The Vatican Council._

      _E. de Pressense,
      Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council._

      _W. E. Gladstone,
      The Vatican Decrees._

   The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
   "Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
   subsequently promulgated by the Pope:

   "_Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
   approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
   remembrance._ The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
   in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
   Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
   as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
   united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
   before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
   not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
   their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
   be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
   Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
   sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
   the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
   and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
   order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
   that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
   faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
   communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
   and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
   and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
   everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
   firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
   Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
   of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
   upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
   might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
   preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
   flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
   be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
   the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
   faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
   institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
   Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
   entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
   contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.

   CHAPTER 1. _Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in
   Blessed Peter._

   We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
   testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
   immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
   Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
   been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
   afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
   the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
   that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
   Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
   thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
   thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
   the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
   give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
   thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
   and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
   also in heaven.
{2476}
   And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
   bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
   His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
   variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
   been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
   opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
   government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
   that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
   Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
   Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
   those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
   immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
   the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
   If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
   was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
   visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
   directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
   Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
   jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER II. _On the perpetuation of the primacy of Peter in
   the Roman Pontiffs._

   That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the
   sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the
   Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and
   lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution,
   necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being
   founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the
   world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that
   the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the
   Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the
   Catholic Church, who received the keys of the kingdom from Our
   Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the race of
   man, continues up to the present time, and ever continues, in
   his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was
   founded by Him, and consecrated by His blood, to live and
   preside and judge. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this
   See, does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the
   Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made
   by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and Blessed Peter,
   abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he
   received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church.
   Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that every
   particular Church—that is to say, the faithful throughout the
   world—should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the
   greater authority of the princedom which this has received;
   that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the
   rights of communion spread to all, as members in the unity of
   the Head, might combine to form one "connected body. If, then,
   any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the
   Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a
   perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the Universal
   Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed
   Peter in this Primacy; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER III. _On the force and character of the Primacy of
   the Roman Pontiff._

   Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred
   Writings, and in agreement with both the plain and express
   decrees of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the
   General Councils, We renew the definition of the Œcumenical
   Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of
   Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
   Pontiff possesses the Primacy over the whole world, and that
   the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of
   the Apostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the
   whole Church, and Father and teacher of all Christians; and
   that full power was given to him in Blessed Peter to rule,
   feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus Christ our
   Lord: as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils
   and in the Sacred Canons. Further we teach and declare that by
   the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses the
   chief ordinary jurisdiction over all other Churches, and that
   this power of jurisdiction possessed by the Roman Pontiff
   being truly episcopal is immediate; which all, both pastors
   and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound,
   by their duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience,
   to obey, not merely in matters which belong to faith and
   morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and
   government of the Church throughout the world, so that the
   Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor
   through the preservation of unity both of communion and of
   profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is
   the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate
   without loss of faith and of salvation. But so far is this
   power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any prejudice to the
   ordinary power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which the Bishops
   who have been set by the Holy Spirit to succeed and hold the
   place of the Apostles feed and govern, each his own flock, as
   true Pastors, that this episcopal authority is really
   asserted, strengthened, and protected by the supreme and
   universal Pastor; in accordance with the words of S. Gregory
   the Great: My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My
   honour is the firm strength of my Brethren, I am then truly
   honoured, when due honour is not denied to each of their
   number. Further, from this supreme power possessed by the
   Roman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows
   that he has the right of free communication with the Pastors
   of the whole Church, and with their flocks, that these may be
   taught and directed by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore
   we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that the
   communication between this supreme Head and the Pastors and
   their flocks can lawfully be impeded; or who represent this
   communication as subject to the will of the secular power, so
   as to maintain that whatever is done by the Apostolic See, or
   by its authority, cannot have force or value, unless it be
   confirmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the
   divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed
   over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that
   he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all
   causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse
   may be had to his tribunal: and that none may meddle with the
   judgment of the Apostolic See, the authority of which is
   greater than all other, nor can any lawfully depart from its
   judgment. Wherefore they depart from the right course who
   assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the
   Roman Pontiffs and an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority
   higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
{2477}
   If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
   merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme
   power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not alone in
   things which belong to faith and morals, but in those which
   relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread
   throughout the world; or who assert that he possesses merely
   the principal part, and not all the fulness of this supreme
   power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and
   immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each
   and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.

   CHAPTER IV. _Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman
   Pontiff:_

   Moreover that the supreme power of teaching is also included
   in the Apostolic Primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as
   successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, enjoys over the
   whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual
   practice of the Church attests, and Œcumenical Councils
   themselves have declared, especially those in which the East
   with the West met in the union of faith and charity. For the
   Fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following in
   the footsteps of their predecessors, gave forth this solemn
   profession: The first condition of salvation is to keep the
   rule of the true faith. And because the sentence of our Lord
   Jesus Christ cannot be passed by, who said: Thou art Peter,
   and upon this Rock I will build my Church, these things which
   have been said are approved by events, because in the
   Apostolic See the Catholic Religion and her holy solemn
   doctrine has always been kept immaculate. Desiring, therefore,
   not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and
   doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the
   one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is
   the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion. And,
   with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, the Greeks
   professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoy supreme and full
   Primacy and preeminence over the whole Catholic Church, which
   it truly and humbly acknowledges that it has received with the
   plenitude of power from our Lord Himself in the person of
   blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor
   the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Apostolic See is bound before
   all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if any
   questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by
   its judgment. Finally, the Council of Florence defined: That
   the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of
   the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all
   Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by
   our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and
   governing the whole Church. To satisfy this pastoral duty our
   predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary
   doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations
   of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be
   preserved sincere and pure where it had been received.
   Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now
   assembled in synod, following the long-established custom of
   Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this
   Apostolic See of those dangers which sprang up in matters of
   faith, that there especially the losses of faith might be
   repaired where faith cannot feel any defect. And the Roman
   Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and
   circumstances, sometimes assembling Œcumenical Councils, or
   asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the
   world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other
   helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held
   those things which with the help of God they had recognised as
   conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic
   Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
   successors of Peter that under His revelation they might make
   known new doctrine, but that under His assistance they might
   scrupulously keep and faithfully expound the revelation or
   deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And, indeed,
   all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox
   Doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine;
   knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever
   free from all blemish of error, according to the divine
   promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His
   disciples: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and
   thou, at length converted, confirm thy brethren. This gift,
   then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven
   upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might
   perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the
   whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous
   food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly
   doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole
   Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation,
   might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this
   very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic
   office is even most of all required, not a few are found who
   take away from its authority, We judge it altogether necessary
   solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son
   of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office.
   Therefore We, faithfully adhering to the tradition received
   from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of
   God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Roman Catholic
   Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, with the
   approbation of the Sacred Council, teach and define that it is
   a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he
   speaks ex cathedrâ, that is, when in discharge of the office
   of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his
   supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding
   faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the
   divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys
   that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that
   His Church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith
   or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman
   Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
   consent of the Church. But if anyone—which may God avert
   —presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be
   anathema."

PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
   End of the Temporal Sovereignty.
   Rome made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy.
   The Law of the Papal Guarantees.

   The events which extinguished the temporal sovereignty of the
   Pope and made Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy will be
   found narrated under ITALY: A. D. 1870. "The entry of the
   Italian troops into Rome, and its union to Italy … was
   acquiesced in by all the powers of Europe, both Protestant and
   Roman Catholic.
{2478}
   The French Government of National Defence,
   which had succeeded to power after the fall of the Second
   Empire, expressed through M. Jules Favre, the Minister of
   Foreign Affairs, its desire that the Italians should do what
   they liked, and avowed its sympathy with them. … The
   Austro-Hungarian Cabinet was asked by the Papal Court to
   protest against the occupation of Rome. To this the Imperial
   and Royal Government gave a direct refusal, alleging among
   other reasons that 'its excellent relations' with Italy, upon
   which it had 'cause to congratulate itself ever since
   reconciliation had been effected' prevented its acceding to
   the desire of the Vatican. … The Spanish Government of the
   Regency, which succeeded to that of Queen Isabella, adopted
   much the same line of conduct; it praised Signor
   Visconti-Venosta's circular, and spoke of the 'wise and
   prudent' measures it proposed to adopt with regard to the
   Pope. … Baron d'Anethan, at that time Prime Minister of
   Belgium, who was the leader of the conservative or clerical
   party in the country, admitted to the Italian Minister at
   Brussels: 'that speaking strictly, the temporal power was not,
   in truth, an indispensable necessity to the Holy See for the
   fulfilment of its mission in the world.' As to the course
   Belgium would take the Baron said —'If Italy has a territorial
   difficulty to discuss with the Holy See, that is a matter with
   which Belgium has nothing to do, and it would be to disown the
   principles on which our existence reposes if we expressed an
   opinion one way or the other on the subject.' … The Italian
   Chamber elected in March, 1867, was dissolved, and on the 5th
   December, 1870, the newly elected Parliament met in Florence
   for the last time. Among its members now sat those who
   represented Rome and the province, in which it is situated.
   The session of 1871 was occupied with the necessary
   arrangements for the transfer of the capital to Rome, and by
   the discussion of an act defining the position of the Pope in
   relation to the kingdom of Italy. The labours of Parliament
   resulted in the Law of the Papal Guarantees, which, after long
   and full debate in both Houses, received the royal assent on
   the 13th of May, 1871. Its provisions ran as follows:

   Article I.—The person of the Sovereign Pontiff is sacred and
   inviolable.

   Article II.—An attack (attentato) directed against the person
   of the Sovereign Pontiff, and any instigation to commit such
   attack, is punishable by the same penalties as those
   established in the case of an attack directed against the
   person of the king, or any instigation to commit such an
   attack. Offences and public insults committed directly against
   the person of the Pontiff by discourses, acts, or by the means
   indicated in the 1st article of the law on the press, are
   punishable by the penalties established by the 19th article of
   the same law. These crimes are liable to public action, and
   are within the jurisdiction of the court of assizes. The
   discussion of religious subjects is completely free.

   Article III.—The Italian Government renders throughout the
   territory of the kingdom royal honours to the Sovereign
   Pontiff, and maintains that pre-eminence of honour recognised
   as belonging to him by Catholic princes. The Sovereign Pontiff
   has power to keep up the usual number of guards attached to
   his person, and to the custody of the palaces, without
   prejudice to the obligations and duties resulting to such
   guards from the actual laws of the kingdom.

   Article IV.—The endowment of 3,225,000 francs (lire italiane)
   of yearly rental is retained in favour of the Holy See. With
   this sum, which is equal to that inscribed in the Roman
   balance-sheet under the title, 'Sacred Apostolic Palaces,
   Sacred College, Ecclesiastical Congregations, Secretary of
   State, and Foreign Diplomatic Office,' it is intended to
   provide for the maintenance of the Sovereign Pontiff, and for
   the various ecclesiastical wants of the Holy See for ordinary
   and extraordinary maintenance, and for the keeping of the
   apostolic palaces and their dependencies; for the pay,
   gratifications, and pensions of the guards of whom mention is
   made in the preceding article, and for those attached to the
   Pontifical Court, and for eventual expenses; also for the
   ordinary maintenance and care of the annexed museums and
   library, and for the pay, stipends, and pensions of those
   employed for that purpose. The endowment mentioned above shall
   be inscribed in the Great Book of the public debt, in form of
   perpetual and inalienable revenue, in the name of the Holy
   See; and during the time that the See is vacant, it shall
   continue to be paid, in order to meet all the needs of the
   Roman Church during that interval of time. The endowment shall
   remain exempt from any species of government, communal, or
   provincial tax; and it cannot be diminished in future, even in
   the case of the Italian Government resolving ultimately itself
   to assume the expenses of the museums and library.

   Article V.—The Sovereign Pontiff, besides the endowment
   established in the preceding article, will continue to have
   the use of the apostolic palaces of the Vatican and Lateran
   with all the edifices, gardens, and grounds annexed to and
   dependent on them, as well as the Villa of Castel Gondolfo
   with all its belongings and dependencies. The said palaces,
   villa, and annexes, like the museums, the library, and the art
   and archæological collections there existing, are inalienable,
   are exempt from every tax or impost, and from all
   expropriation on the ground of public utility.

   Article VI.—During the time in which the Holy See is vacant,
   no judiciary or political authority shall be able for any
   reason whatever to place any impediment or limit to the
   personal liberty of the cardinals. The Government provides
   that the meetings of the Conclave and of the Œcumenical
   Councils shall not be disturbed by any external violence.

   Article VII.—No official of the public authority, nor agent of
   the public forces, can in the exercise of his peculiar office
   enter into the palaces or localities of habitual residence or
   temporary stay of the Sovereign Pontiff, or in those in which
   are assembled a Conclave or Œcumenical Council, unless
   authorised by the Sovereign Pontiff, by the Conclave, or by
   the Council.

   Article VIII.—It is forbidden to proceed with visits,
   perquisitions, or seizures of papers, documents, books, or
   registers in the offices and pontifical congregations invested
   with purely spiritual functions.

   Article IX.—The Sovereign Pontiff is completely free to fulfil
   all the functions of his spiritual ministry, and to have
   affixed to the doors of the basilicas and churches of Rome all
   the acts of the said ministry.

{2479}

   Article X.—The ecclesiastics who, by reason of their office,
   participate in Rome in the sending forth of the acts of the
   spiritual ministry of the Holy See, are not subject on account
   of those acts to any molestation, investigation, or act of
   magistracy, on the part of the public authorities. Every
   stranger invested with ecclesiastical office in Rome enjoys
   the personal guarantees belonging to Italian citizens in
   virtue of the laws of the kingdom.

   Article XI.—The envoys of foreign governments to the Holy See
   enjoy in the kingdom all the prerogatives and immunities which
   belong to diplomatic agents, according to international right.
   To offences against them are extended the penalties inflicted
   for offences against the envoys of foreign powers accredited
   to the Italian Government. To the envoys of the Holy See to
   foreign Governments are assured throughout the territory of
   the kingdom the accustomed prerogatives and immunities,
   according to the same (international) right, in going to and
   from the place of their mission.

   Article XII.—The Supreme Pontiff corresponds freely with the
   Episcopate and with all the Catholic world without any
   interference whatever on the part of the Italian Government.
   To such end he has the faculty of establishing in the Vatican,
   or any other of his residences, postal and telegraphic offices
   worked by clerks of his own appointment. The Pontifical
   post-office will be able to correspond directly, by means of
   sealed packets, with the post-offices of foreign
   administrations, or remit its own correspondence to the
   Italian post-offices. In both cases the transport of
   despatches or correspondence furnished with the official
   Pontifical stamp will be exempt from every tax or expense as
   regards Italian territory. The couriers sent out in the name
   of the Supreme Pontiff are placed on the same footing in the
   kingdom, as the cabinet couriers or those of foreign
   government. The Pontifical telegraphic office will be placed
   in communication with the network of telegraphic lines of the
   kingdom, at the expense of the State. Telegrams transmitted by
   the said office with the authorised designation of
   'Pontifical' will be received and transmitted with the
   privileges established for telegrams of State, and with the
   exemption in the kingdom from every tax. The same advantages
   will be enjoyed by the telegrams of the Sovereign Pontiff or
   those which, signed by his order and furnished with the stamp
   of the Holy See, shall be presented to any telegraphic office
   in the kingdom. Telegrams directed to the Sovereign Pontiff
   shall be exempt from charges upon those who send them.

   Article XIII.—In the city of Rome and in the six suburban sees
   the seminaries, academies, colleges, and other Catholic
   institutions founded for the education and culture of
   ecclesiastics, shall continue to depend only on the Holy See,
   without any interference of the scholastic authorities of the
   kingdom.

   Article XIV.—Every special restriction of the exercise of the
   right of meeting on the part of the members of the Catholic
   clergy is abolished.

   Article XV.—The Government renounces its right of apostolic
   legateship (legazia apostolica) in Sicily, and also its right,
   throughout the kingdom, of nomination or presentation in the
   collation of the greater benefices. The bishops shall not be
   required to make oath of allegiance to the king. The greater
   and lesser benefices cannot be conferred except on citizens of
   the kingdom, save in the case of the city of Rome, and of the
   suburban sees. No innovation is made touching the presentation
   to benefices under royal patronage.

   Article XVI.—The royal 'exequatur' and 'placet,' and every
   other form of Government assent for the publication and
   execution of acts of ecclesiastical authority, are abolished.
   However, until such time as may be otherwise provided in the
   special law of which Art. XVIII. speaks, the acts of these
   (ecclesiastical) authorities which concern the destination of
   ecclesiastical property and the provisions of the major and
   minor benefices, excepting those of the city of Rome and the
   suburban sees, remain subject to the royal 'exequatur' and
   'placet.' The enactments of the civil law with regard to the
   creation and to the modes of existence of ecclesiastical
   institutions and of their property remain unaltered.

   Article XVII.—In matters spiritual and of spiritual
   discipline, no appeal is admitted against acts of the
   ecclesiastical authorities, nor is any aid on the part of the
   civil authority recognised as due to such acts, nor is it
   accorded to them. The recognising of the judicial effects, in
   these as in every other act of these (ecclesiastical)
   authorities, rests with the civil jurisdiction. However, such
   acts are without effect if contrary to the laws of the State,
   or to public order, or if damaging to private rights, and are
   subjected to the penal laws if they constitute a crime.

   Article XVIII.—An ulterior law will provide for the
   reorganisation, the preservation, and the administration of
   the ecclesiastical property of the kingdom.

   Article XIX.—As regards all matters which form part of the
   present law, everything now existing, in so far as it may be
   contrary to this law, ceases to have effect.

   The object of this law was to carry out still further than had
   yet been done the principle of a 'free Church in a free
   State,' by giving the Church unfettered power in all spiritual
   matters, while placing all temporal power in the hands of the
   State. … The Pope and his advisers simply protested against
   all that was done. Pius IX. shut himself up in the Vatican and
   declared himself a prisoner. In the meanwhile the practical
   transfer of the capital from Florence was effected."

      _J. W. Probyn,
      Italy, 1815 to 1878,
      chapter 11._

   The attitude towards the Italian Government assumed by the
   Papal Court in 1870, and since maintained, is indicated by the
   following, quoted from a work written in sympathy with it:
   "Pius IX. had refused to treat with or in any way recognize
   the new masters of Rome. The Law of Guarantees adopted by the
   Italian Parliament granted him a revenue in compensation for
   the broad territories of which he had been despoiled. He
   refused to touch a single lira of it, and preferred to rely
   upon the generosity of his children in every land, rather than
   to become the pensioner of those who had stripped him of his
   civil sovereignty. His last years were spent within the
   boundaries of the Vatican palace. He could not have ventured
   to appear publicly in the city without exposing himself to the
   insults of the mob on the one hand, or on the other calling
   forth demonstrations of loyalty, which would have been made
   the pretext for stern military repression.
{2480}
   Nor could he have accepted in the streets of Rome the
   protection of the agents of that very power against whose
   presence in the city he had never ceased to protest. Thus it
   was that Pius IX. became, practically, a prisoner in his own
   palace of the Vatican. He had not long to wait for evidence of
   the utter hollowness of the so-called Law of Guarantees. The
   extension to Rome of the law suppressing the religious orders,
   the seizure of the Roman College, the project for the
   expropriation of the property of the Propaganda itself, were
   so many proofs of the spirit in which the new rulers of Rome
   interpreted their pledges, that the change of government
   should not in any way prejudice the Church or the Holy See in
   its administration of the Church. … The very misfortunes and
   difficulties of the Holy See drew closer the bonds that united
   the Catholic world to its centre. The Vatican became a centre
   of pilgrimage to an extent that it had never been before in
   all its long history, and this movement begun under Pius IX.
   has continued and gathered strength under Leo XIII., until at
   length it has provoked the actively hostile opposition of the
   intruded government. Twice during his last years Pius IX.
   found himself the centre of a world-wide demonstration of
   loyalty and affection, first on June 16th, 1871, when he
   celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of his coronation, the
   first of all the Popes who had ever reigned beyond the 'years
   of Peter;' and again on June 3rd, 1877, when, surrounded by
   the bishops and pilgrims of all nations, he kept the jubilee
   of his episcopal consecration. … Pius IX. was destined to
   outlive Victor Emmanuel, as he had outlived Napoleon III. …
   Victor Emmanuel died on January 9th, Pius IX. on February 6th
   [1879]. … It had been the hope of the Revolution that, however
   stubbornly Pius IX. might refuse truce or compromise with the
   new order of things, his successor would prove to be a man of
   more yielding disposition. The death of the Pope had occurred
   somewhat unexpectedly. Though he had been ill in the autumn of
   1877, at the New Year he seemed to have recovered, and there
   was every expectation that his life would be prolonged for at
   least some months. The news of his death came at a moment when
   the Italian Government was fully occupied with the changes
   that followed the accession of a new king, and when the
   diplomatists of Europe were more interested in the settlement
   of the conditions of peace between France and Germany than in
   schemes for influencing the conclave. Before the enemies of
   the Church had time to concert any hostile plans of action,
   the cardinals had assembled at the Vatican and had chosen as
   Supreme Pontiff, Cardinal Pecci, the Archbishop of Perugia. He
   assumed the name of Leo XIII., a name now honoured not only
   within the Catholic Church, but throughout the whole civilized
   world. … The first public utterances of the new Pope shattered
   the hopes of the usurpers. He had taken up the standard of the
   Church's rights from the hands of his predecessor, and he
   showed himself as uncompromising as ever Pius IX. had been on
   the question of the independence of the Holy See, and its
   effective guarantee in the Civil Sovereignty of the Supreme
   Pontiff. The hope that the Roman Question would be solved by a
   surrender on the part of Leo XIII. of all that Pius IX. had
   contended for, has been long since abandoned by even the most
   optimist of the Italian party."

      _Chevalier O'Clery,
      The Making of Italy,
      chapter 26._

PAPACY: A. D. 1873-1887.
   The Culturkampf in Germany.
   The "May Laws" and their repeal.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

PAPACY: A. D. 1878.
   Election of Leo XIII.

PAPACY: A. D. 1891.
   Disestablishment of the Church in Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
   Mission of an Apostolic Delegate to
   the United States of America.

   In October, 1892, Monsignor Francisco Satolli arrived in the
   United States, commissioned by the Pope as "Apostolic
   Delegate," with powers described in the following terms: "'We
   command all whom it concerns,' says the Head of the Church,
   'to recognize in you, as Apostolic Delegate, the supreme power
   of the delegating Pontiff; we command that they give you aid,
   concurrence and obedience in all things; that they receive
   with reverence your salutary admonitions and orders.'"

      _Forum,
      May, 1893 (volume 15, page 278)._

   ----------PAPACY:End--------

PAPAGOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

PAPAL GUARANTEES, Law of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

PAPAL STATES.

      See
      STATES OF THE CHURCH;
      also PAPACY.

PAPER BLOCKADE.

      See BLOCKADE, PAPER.

PAPER MONEY.

      See MONEY AND BANKING.

PAPHLAGONIANS, The.

   A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
   Euxine, from the mouth of the Kizil-Irmak to Cape Baba.

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

   Paphlagonia formed part, in succession, of the dominions of
   Lydia, Persia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Rome, but was often
   governed by local princes.

PAPIN, Inventions of.

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS.

PAPINEAU REBELLION, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PAPUANS, The.

   "In contrast to the Polynesians, both in color of skin and
   shape of skull, are the crispy-haired black dolichocephalic
   Papuans, whose centre is in the large and little-known island
   of New Guinea, from whence they spread over the neighboring
   islands to the southeast, the Louisades, New Caledonia, New
   Britain, Solomon Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, New
   Hebrides, Loyalty, and Fiji Islands. Turning now to the
   northward, a similar black race is found in the Eta or Ita of
   the Philippenes (Negritos of the Spanish), whom Meyer, Semper,
   Peschel, and Hellwald believe to be closely allied to the true
   Papuan type; and in the interiors of Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes,
   and Gilolo, and in the mountains of Malacca, and at last in
   the Andaman Islands, we find peoples closely related; and
   following Peschel, we may divide the whole of the eastern
   blacks (excepting of course the Australians) into Asiatic and
   Australasian Papuans; the latter inhabiting New Guinea and the
   islands mentioned to the south and east. In other of the
   islands of the South Seas traces of a black race are to be
   found, but so mingled with Polynesian and Malay as to render
   them fit subjects for treatment under the chapters on those
   races.
{2481}
   The name Papua comes from the Malay word papuwah,
   crispy-haired, and is the name which the Malays apply to their
   black neighbors. In New Guinea, the centre of the Papuans, the
   name is not known, nor have the different tribes any common
   name for themselves. In body, conformation of skull, and in
   genera] appearance the Papuans present a very close
   resemblance to the African negroes, and afford a strong
   contrast to the neighboring Polynesians."

      _J. S. Kingsley, editor,
      The Standard [now called The Riverside], Natural History,
      volume 6, page 42._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Wallace,
      The Malay Archipelago,
      chapter 40._

PARABOLANI OF ALEXANDRIA, The.

   "The 'parabolani' of Alexandria were a charitable corporation,
   instituted during the plague of Gallienus, to visit the sick
   and to bury the dead. They gradually enlarged, abused, and
   sold the privileges of their order. Their outrageous conduct
   under the reign of Cyril [as patriarch of Alexandria] provoked
   the emperor to deprive the patriarch of their nomination and
   to restrain their number to five or six hundred. But these
   restraints were transient and ineffectual."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 47, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 3, chapter 9._

PARACELSUS.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY.

   ----------PARAGUAY: Start--------

PARAGUAY:
   The name.

   "De Azara tells us that the river Paraguay derives its name
   from the Payaguas tribe of Indians, who were the earliest
   navigators on its waters. Some writers deduce the origin of
   its title from an Indian cacique, called Paraguaio, but Azara
   says, this latter word has no signification in any known idiom
   of the Indians, and moreover there is no record of a cacique
   ever having borne that name."

      _T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      page 44._

PARAGUAY:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES, and TUPI.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery and exploration of La Plata.
   Settlement and early years of the peculiar colony.

   The Rio de la Plata, or River of Silver, was discovered in
   1515 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Solis, who landed
   incautiously and was killed by the natives. In 1519 this
   "Sweet Sea," as Solis called it, was visited again by
   Magellan, in the course of the voyage which made known the
   great strait which bears his name. The first, however, to
   ascend the important river for any distance, and to attempt
   the establishing of Spanish settlements upon it, was Sebastian
   Cabot, in 1526, after he had become chief pilot to the king of
   Spain. He sailed up the majestic stream to the junction of the
   Paraguay and the Parana, and then explored both channels, in
   turn, for long distances beyond. "Cabot passed the following
   two years in friendly relations with the Guaranis, in whose
   silver ornaments originated the name of La Plata, and thence
   of the Argentine Republic, the name having been applied by
   Cabot to the stream now called the Paraguay. That able and
   sagacious man now sent to Spain two of his most trusted
   followers with an account of Paraguay and its resources, and
   to seek the authority and reinforcements requisite for their
   acquisition. Their request was favourably received, but so
   tardily acted on that in despair the distinguished navigator
   quitted the region of his discoveries after a delay of five
   years." In 1534, the enterprise abandoned by Cabot was taken
   up by a wealthy Spanish courtier, Don Pedro de Mendoza, who
   received large powers, and who fitted out an expedition of
   2,000 men, with 100 horses, taking with him eight priests.
   Proceeding but a hundred miles up the Plata, Mendoza founded a
   town on its southwestern shore, which, in compliment to the
   fine climate of the region, he named Buenos Ayres. As long as
   they kept at peace with the natives, these adventurers fared
   well; but when war broke out, as it did ere long, they were
   reduced to great straits for food. Mendoza, broken down with
   disappointments and hardships, resigned his powers to his
   lieutenant, Ayolas, and sailed for home, but died on the way.
   Ayolas, with part of his followers, ascended to a point on the
   Paraguay some distance above its junction with the Parana,
   where he founded a new city, calling it Asuncion. This was in
   1537; and Ayolas perished that same year in an attempt to make
   his way overland to Peru. The survivors of the colony were
   left in command of an officer named Irala, who proved to be a
   most capable man. The settlement at Buenos Ayres was abandoned
   and all concentrated at Asuncion, where they numbered 600
   souls. In 1542 they were joined by a new party of 400
   adventurers from Spain, who came out with Cabeza de Vaca—a
   hero of strange adventures in Florida—now appointed Adelantado
   of La Plata. Cabeza de Vaca had landed with part of his forces
   on the Brazilian coast, at a point eastward from Asuncion, and
   boldly marched across country, making an important exploration
   and establishing friendly relations with the Guaranis. But he
   was not successful in his government, and the discontented
   colonists summarily deposed him, shipping him off to Spain,
   with charges against him, and restoring Irala to the command
   of their affairs. This irregularity seems to have been winked
   at by the home authorities, and Irala was scarcely interfered
   with for a number of years. "The favourable reports which had
   reached Spain of the climate and capabilities of Paraguay were
   such as to divert thither many emigrants who would otherwise
   have turned their faces toward Mexico or Peru. It was the
   constant endeavour of Irala to level the distinctions which
   separated the Spaniards from the natives and to encourage
   intermarriages between them. This policy, in the course of
   time, led to a marked result,—namely, to that singular
   combination of outward civilization and of primitive
   simplicity which was to be found in the modern Paraguayan race
   until it was annihilated under the younger Lopez. … Irala, in
   fact, created a nation. The colony under his administration
   became numerous and wealthy. … He was the life and soul of the
   colony, and his death, which occurred in 1557 at the village
   of Ita, near Asuncion, when he had attained the age of 70
   years, was lamented alike by Spaniards and Guaranis. … The
   Spaniards brought with them few if any women, and if a certain
   proportion of Spanish ladies arrived later they were not in
   sufficient numbers to affect the general rule, which was that
   the Spanish settlers were allied to Guarani wives. Thus was
   formed the modern mixed Paraguayan race. In a very short time,
   therefore, by means of the ties of relationship, a strong
   sympathy grew up between the Spaniards and the Guaranis, or
   those of Guarani blood, and a recognition of this fact formed
   the basis of the plan of government founded by the great
   Irala.
{2482}
   The lot of the natives of Paraguay, as compared with the
   natives of the other Spanish dominions in the New World, was
   far from being a hard one. There were no mines to work. The
   Spaniards came there to settle, rather than to amass fortunes
   with which to return to Europe. The country was abundantly
   fertile, and such wealth as the Spaniards might amass
   consisted in the produce of their fields or the increase of
   their herds, which were amply sufficient to support them.
   Consequently, all they required of the natives, for the most
   part, was a moderate amount of service as labourers or as
   herdsmen."

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 5 and 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      History of Brazil,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3, 5-7, and 11._

      _R. Biddle,
      Memoir of Sebastian Cabot,
      chapters 16-23._

      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay,
      books 1-3._

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
   The rule of the Jesuits.
   The Dictatorship of Dr. Francia and of Lopez I. and Lopez II.
   Disastrous War with Brazil.

   "Under Spanish rule, from the early part of the 16th century
   as a remote dependency of Peru, and subsequently of Buenos
   Ayres, Paraguay had been almost entirely abandoned to the
   Jesuits [see JESUITS: A. D, 1542-1649] as a virgin ground on
   which to try the experiment of their idea of a theocratic
   government. The Loyola Brethren, first brought in in 1608,
   baptized the Indian tribes, built towns, founded missions [and
   communities of converts called Reductions, meaning that they
   had been reduced into the Christian faith], gave the tamed
   savages pacific, industrious, and passively obedient habits,
   married them by wholesale, bidding the youth of the two sexes
   stand up in opposite rows, and saving them the trouble of a
   choice by pointing out to every Jack his Jenny; drilled and
   marshalled them to their daily tasks in processions and at the
   sound of the church bells, headed by holy images; and in their
   leisure hours amused them with Church ceremonies and any
   amount of music and dancing and merry-making. They allowed
   each family a patch of ground and a grove of banana and other
   fruit trees for their sustenance, while they claimed the whole
   bulk of the land for themselves as 'God's patrimony,' bidding
   those well-disciplined devotees save their souls by slaving
   with their bodies in behalf of their ghostly masters and
   instructors. With the whole labouring population under
   control, these holy men soon waxed so strong as to awe into
   subjection the few white settlers whose estates dated from the
   conquest; and by degrees, extending their sway from the
   country into the towns, and even into the capital, Asuncion,
   they set themselves above all civil and ecclesiastical
   authority, snubbing the intendente of the province and
   worrying the bishop of the diocese. Driven away by a fresh
   outburst of popular passions in 1731, and brought back four
   years later by the strong hand of the Spanish Government, they
   made common cause with it, truckled to the lay powers whom
   they had set at naught, and shared with them the good things
   which they had at first enjoyed undivided. All this till the
   time of the general crusade of the European powers against
   their order, when they had to depart from Paraguay as well as
   from all other Spanish dominions in 1767. In the early part of
   the present century, when the domestic calamities of Spain
   determined a general collapse of her power in the American
   colonies, Paraguay raised its cry for independence, and
   constituted itself into a separate Republic in 1811. But,
   although the party of emancipation was the strongest and
   seized the reins of government, there were still many among
   the citizens who clung to their connection with the mother
   country, and these were known as Peninsulares; and there were
   many more who favoured the scheme of a federal union of
   Paraguay with the Republics of the Plate, and these went by
   the name of Porteños, owing to the importance they attached to
   the dependence of their country on Buenos Ayres (the puerto or
   harbour), the only outlet as well as the natural head of the
   projected confederation.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

   All these dissenters were soon disposed of by the ruthless
   energy of one man, Juan Gaspar Rodriguez, known under the name
   of Dr. Francia. This man, the son of a Mamaluco, or Brazilian
   half-caste, with Indian blood in his veins, a man of stern,
   gloomy and truculent character, with a mixture of scepticism
   and stoicism, was one of those grim, yet grotesque, heroes
   according to Mr. Carlyle's heart whom it is now the fashion to
   call 'Saviours of society.' A Doctor of Divinity, issuing from
   the Jesuit seminary at Cordova, but practising law at
   Asuncion, he made his way from the Municipal Council to the
   Consular dignity of the New Republic, and assumed a
   Dictatorship, which laid the country at his discretion …
   (1814-1840), wielding the most unbounded power till his death,
   at the advanced age of 83. With a view, or under pretext of
   stifling discontent and baffling conspiracy within and warding
   off intrigue or aggression from without, he rid himself of his
   colleagues, rivals, and opponents, by wholesale executions,
   imprisonments, proscriptions, and confiscations, and raised a
   kind of Chinese wall all round the Paraguayan territory,
   depriving it of all trade or intercourse, and allowing no man
   to enter or quit his dominions without an express permission
   from himself. Francia's absolutism was a monomania, though
   there was something like method in his madness. There were
   faction and civil strife and military rule in Paraguay for
   about a twelvemonth after his death. In the end, a new
   Constitution, new Consuls—one of whom, Carlos Antonio Lopez, a
   lawyer, took upon himself to modify the Charter in a strictly
   despotic sense, had himself elected President, first for ten
   years, then for three, and again for ten more, managing thus
   to reign alone and supreme for 21 years (1841-1862). On his
   demise he bequeathed the Vice-Presidency to his son, Francisco
   Solano Lopez, whom he had already trusted with the command of
   all the forces, and who had no difficulty in having himself
   appointed President for life in an Assembly where there was
   only one negative vote. The rule of Francia in his later
   years, and that of the first Lopez throughout his reign,
   though tyrannical and economically improvident, had not been
   altogether unfavourable to the development of public
   prosperity. The population, which was only 97,480 in 1796 and
   400,000 in 1825, had risen to 1,337,431 at the census of 1857.
   Paraguay had then a revenue of 12,441,323f., no debt, no paper
   money, and the treasury was so full as to enable Lopez II. to
   muster an army of 62,000 men, with 200 pieces of artillery, in
   the field and in his fortresses.
{2483}
   Armed with this two-edged weapon, the new despot, whose
   perverse and violent temper bordered on insanity, corrupted by
   several years' dissipation in Paris, and swayed by the
   influence of a strong and evil-minded woman, flattered also by
   the skill he fancied he had shown when he played at soldiers
   as his father's general in early youth, had come to look upon
   himself as a second Napoleon, and allowed himself no rest till
   he had picked a quarrel with all his neighbours and engaged in
   a war with Brazil and with the Republics of the Plate, which
   lasted five years (1865-1870).

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

   At the end of it nearly the whole of the male population had
   been led like sheep to the slaughter; and the tyrant himself
   died 'in the last ditch,' not indeed fighting like a man, but
   killed like a dog when his flight was cut off, and not before
   he had sacrificed 100,000 of his combatants, doomed to
   starvation, sickness, and unutterable hardship a great many of
   the scattered and houseless population (400,000, as it is
   calculated), and so ruined the country that the census of 1873
   only gave 221,079 souls, of whom the females far more than
   doubled the males."

      _A. Gallenga,
      South America,
      chapter 16._

      ALSO IN:
      _Father Charlevoix,
      History of Paraguay._

      _J. R. Rengger and Longchamps,
      The Reign of Dr. Francia._

      _T. Carlyle,
      Dr. Francia
      (Essays, volume 6)._

      _C. A. Washburn,
      History of Paraguay._

      _R. F. Burton,
      Letters from the Battlefields of Paraguay._

      _T. J. Page,
      La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay,
      chapters 27-30._

      _T. Griesinger,
      The Jesuits,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      _J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 7, chapter 7 (volume 4)._

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1870-1894.
   The Republic under a new Constitution.

   Since the death of Lopez, the republic of Paraguay has enjoyed
   a peaceful, uneventful history and has made fair progress in
   recovery from its prostration. The Brazilian army of
   occupation was withdrawn in 1876. Under a new constitution,
   the executive authority is entrusted to a president, elected
   for four years, and the legislative to a congress of two
   houses, senate and deputies. Don Juan G. Gonzales entered, in
   1890, upon a presidential term which expires in 1894.

   ----------PARAGUAY: End--------

PARALI, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PARALUS, The.

   The official vessel of the ancient Athenian government, for
   the conveyance of despatches and other official service.

PARASANG, The.

   The parasang was an ancient Persian measure of distance, about
   which there is no certain knowledge. Xenophon and Herodotus
   represented it as equivalent to 30 Greek stadia; but Strabo
   regarded it as being of variable length. Modern opinion seems
   to incline toward agreement with Strabo, and to conclude that
   the parasang was a merely rough estimate of distance,
   averaging, according to computations by Colonel Chesney and
   others, something less than three geographical miles. The
   modern farsang or farsakh of Persia is likewise an estimated
   distance, which generally, however, overruns three
   geographical miles.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 10, note B (volume 1)._

PARAWIANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

PARICANIANS, The.

   The name given by Herodotus to a people who anciently occupied
   the territory of modern Baluchistan.

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

PARILIA,
PULILIA, The.

   The anniversary of the foundation of Rome, originally a
   shepherds' festival. It was celebrated on the 21st of April.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 21, with foot-note._

   ----------PARIS: Start--------

PARIS:
   The beginning.

   A small island in the Seine, which now forms an almost
   insignificant part of the great French capital, was the site
   of a rude town called Lutetia, or Luketia, or Lucotecia, when
   Cæsar extended the dominion of Rome over that part of Gaul. It
   was the chief town or stronghold of the Parisii, one of the
   minor tribes of the Gallic people, who were under the
   protection of the more powerful Senones and who occupied but a
   small territory. They were engaged in river traffic on the
   Seine and seem to have been prosperous, then and afterwards.
   "Strabo calls this p]ace Lucototia; Ptolemy, Lucotecia;
   Julian, Luketia; Ammianus calls it at first Lutetia, and
   afterward Parisii, from the name of the people. It is not
   known when nor why the designation was changed, but it is
   supposed to have been changed during the reign of Julian.
   Three laws in the Theodosian Code, referred to Valentinian and
   Valens, for the year 365, bear date at Parisii, and since then
   this name has been preserved in all the histories and public
   records."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 7, note._

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

PARIS:
   Julian's residence.

   Before Julian ("the Apostate") became emperor, while, as Cæsar
   (355-361), he governed Gaul, his favorite residence, when not
   in camp or in the field, was at the city of the Parisii, which
   he called his "dear Luketia." The change of name to Parisii
   (whence resulted the modern name of Paris) is supposed to have
   taken place during his subsequent reign. "Commanding the
   fruitful valleys of the Seine, the Marne, and the Oise, the
   earliest occupants were merchants and boatmen, who conducted
   the trade of the rivers, and as early as the reign of Tiberius
   had formed a powerful corporation. During the revolts of the
   Bagauds in the third century, it acquired an unhappy celebrity
   as the stronghold from which they harassed the peace of the
   surrounding region. Subsequently, when the advances of the
   Germans drove the government from Trèves, the emperors
   selected the town of the Parisii as a more secure position.
   They built a palace there, and an entrenched camp for the
   soldiers; and very soon afterward several of those aqueducts
   and amphitheatres which were inseparable accompaniments of
   Roman life. It was in that palace, which the traveller still
   regards with curiosity in those mouldering remains of it known
   as the 'Palais des Thermes,' that Julian found his favorite
   residence."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 7._

PARIS:
   The capital of Clovis.

   Clovis, the Frank conqueror—founder of the kingdom of the
   united Frank tribes in Gaul—fixed his residence first at
   Soissons [486], after he had overthrown Syagrius. "He
   afterwards chose Paris for his abode, where he built a church
   dedicated to the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. But the
   epoch at which that town passed into his power is uncertain."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 5._

{2484}

PARIS: A. D. 511-752.
   Under the Merovingians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 511-752.

PARIS: A. D. 845.
   Sacked by the Normans.

   "France was heavily afflicted: a fearfully cold year was
   followed by another still colder and more inclement. The North
   wind blew incessantly all through the Winter, all through the
   pale and leafless Spring. The roots of the vines were perished
   by the frost—the wolves starved out of their forests, even in
   Aquitaine. … Meanwhile the Danish hosts were in bright
   activity. Regner Lodbrok and his fellows fitted out their
   fleet, ten times twelve dragons of the sea. Early in the bleak
   Spring they sailed, and the stout-built vessels ploughed
   cheerily through the crashing ice on the heaving Seine. …
   Rouen dared not offer any opposition. The Northmen quietly
   occupied the City: we apprehend that some knots or bands of
   the Northmen began even now to domicile themselves there, it
   being scarcely possible to account for the condition of
   Normandy under Rollo otherwise than by the supposition, that
   the country had long previously received a considerable Danish
   population. Paris, the point to which the Northmen were
   advancing by land and water, was the key of France, properly
   so–called. Paris taken, the Seine would become a Danish river:
   Paris defended, the Danes might be restrained, perhaps
   expelled. The Capetian 'Duchy of France,' not yet created by
   any act of State, was beginning to be formed through the
   increasing influence of the future Capital. … Fierce as the
   Northmen generally were, they exceeded their usual ferocity. …
   With such panic were the Franks stricken, that they gave
   themselves up for lost. Paris island, Paris river, Paris
   bridges, Paris towers, were singularly defensible: the
   Palaisdes-Thermes, the monasteries, were as so many castles.
   Had the inhabitants, for their own sakes, co-operated with
   Charles-le-Chauve [who had stationed himself with a small army
   at Saint-Denis], the retreat of the Danes would have been
   entirely cut off; but they were palsied in mind and body;
   neither thought of resistance nor attempted resistance, and
   abandoned themselves to despair. On Easter Eve [March 28, 845]
   the Danes entered Paris. … The priests and clerks deserted
   their churches: the monks fled, bearing with them their
   shrines: soldiers, citizens and sailors abandoned their
   fortresses, dwellings and vessels: the great gate was left
   open, Paris emptied of her inhabitants, the city a solitude.
   The Danes hied at once to the untenanted monasteries: all
   valuable objects had been removed or concealed, but the
   Northmen employed themselves after their fashion. In the
   church of Saint-Germain-des-pres, they swarmed up the pillars
   and galleries, and pulled the roof to pieces: the larchen
   beams being sought as excellent ship-timber. In the city,
   generally, they did not commit much devastation. They lodged
   themselves in the empty houses, and plundered all the
   moveables. … The Franks did not make any attempt to attack or
   dislodge the enemy, but a more efficient power compelled the
   Danes to retire from the city; disease raged among them,
   dysentery—a complaint frequently noticed, probably occasioned
   by their inordinate potations of the country-wine." Under
   these circumstances, Regner Lodbrok consented to quit Paris on
   receiving 7,000 pounds of silver,—a sum reckoned to be
   equivalent to 520,000 livres. "This was the first Danegeld
   paid by France, an unhappy precedent, and yet unavoidable: the
   pusillanimity of his subjects compelled Charles to adopt this
   disgraceful compromise."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 9._

PARIS: A. D. 857.-861.
   Twice ravaged by the Northmen.

   "The Seine as well as the future Duchy of France being laid
   open to the Northmen [A. D. 857], Paris, partially recovered
   from Regner Lodbrok's invasion, was assailed with more fell
   intent. The surrounding districts were ravaged, and the great
   monasteries, heretofore sacked, were now destroyed. Only three
   churches were found standing—Saint-Denis,
   Saint-Germain-des-près, and Saint-Etienne or Notre-Dame —these
   having redeemed themselves by contributions to the enemy; but
   Saint-Denis made a bad bargain. The Northmen did not hold to
   their contract, or another company of pirates did not consider
   it as binding: the monastery was burnt to a shell, and a most
   heavy ransom paid for the liberation of Abbot Louis,
   Charlemagne's grandson by his daughter Rothaida.
   Sainte-Genevieve suffered most severely amongst all; and the
   pristine beauty of the structure rendered the calamity more
   conspicuous and the distress more poignant. During three
   centuries the desolated grandeur of the shattered ruins
   continued to excite sorrow and dread. … Amongst the calamities
   of the times, the destruction of the Parisian monasteries
   seems to have worked peculiarly on the imagination." After
   this destructive visitation, the city had rest for only three
   years. In 861 a fresh horde of Danish pirates, first harrying
   the English coast and burning Winchester, swept then across
   the channel and swarmed over the country from Scheldt to
   Seine. Amiens, Nimeguen, Bayeux and Terouenne were all taken,
   on the way, and once more on Easter Day (April 6, 861) the
   ruthless savages of the North entered Paris.
   Saint-Germain-des-près, spared formerly, was now set on fire,
   and the city was stripped of its movable goods. King Charles
   the Bald met the enemy on this occasion, as before, with
   bribes, gave a fief to Jarl Welland, the Danish leader, and
   presently got him settled in the country as a baptized
   Christian and a vassal.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

PARIS: A. D. 885-886.
   The great siege by the Northmen.

   "In November, 885, under the reign of Charles the Fat, after
   having, for more than forty years, irregularly ravaged France,
   they [the Northmen] resolved to unite their forces in order at
   length to obtain possession of Paris, whose outskirts they had
   so often pillaged without having been able to enter the heart
   of the place, in the Ile de la Cité, which had originally been
   and still was the real Paris. Two bodies of troops were set in
   motion; one, under the command of Rollo, who was already
   famous amongst his comrades, marched on Rouen; the other went
   right up the course of the Seine, under the orders of
   Siegfried, whom the Northmen called their king. Rollo took
   Rouen, and pushed on at once for Paris. …
{2485}
   On the 25th of November, 885, all the forces of the Northmen
   formed a junction before Paris; 700 huge barks covered two
   leagues of the Seine, bringing, it is said, more than 30,000
   men. The chieftains were astonished at sight of the new
   fortifications of the city, a double wall of circumvallation,
   the bridges crowned with towers, and in the environs the
   ramparts of the abbeys of St. Denis and St. Germain solidly
   rebuilt. … Paris had for defenders two heroes, one of the
   Church and the other of the Empire [Bishop Gozlin, and Eudes,
   lately made Count of Paris]. … The siege lasted thirteen
   months, whiles pushed vigorously forward, with eight several
   assaults; whiles maintained by close investment. … The bishop,
   Gozlin, died during the siege. Count Eudes quitted Paris for a
   time to go and beg aid of the emperor; but the Parisians soon
   saw him reappear on the heights of Montmartre with three
   battalions of troops, and he re-entered the town, spurring on
   his horse and striking right and left with his battle-axe
   through the ranks of the dumfounded besiegers. The struggle
   was prolonged throughout the summer, and when, in November,
   886, Charles the Fat at last appeared before Paris, 'with a
   large army of all nations,' it was to purchase the retreat of
   the Northmen at the cost of a heavy ransom, and by allowing
   them to go and winter in Burgundy, 'whereof the inhabitants
   obeyed not the emperor.'"

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _C. F. Keary,
      The Vikings in Western Christendom,
      chapter 15._

PARIS: A. D. 987.
   First becomes the capital of France.

   "Nothing is more certain than that Paris never became the
   capital of France until after the accession of the third
   dynasty. Paris made the Capets, the Capets made Paris."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 1, page 280._

PARIS: A. D. 1180-1199.
   Improvement of the city by Philip Augustus.

   "During the few short intervals of peace which had occurred in
   the hitherto troubled reign of Philip [A. D. 1180-1199], he
   had not been unmindful of the civil improvement of his people;
   and the inhabitants of his capital are indebted to his
   activity for the first attempts to rescue its foul, narrow,
   and mud-embedded streets from the reproach which its Latin
   name 'Lutetia' very justly implied. Philip expended much of
   the treasure, hitherto devoted solely to the revels of the
   court, in works of public utility, in the construction of
   paved causeways and aqueducts, in founding colleges and
   hospitals, in commencing a new city wall, and in the erection
   of the Cathedral of Nôtre-Dame."

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 4._

PARIS: A. D. 1328.
   The splendor and gaiety of the Court.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1328.

PARIS: A. D. 1356-1383.
   The building of the Bastille.

      See BASTILLE.

PARIS: A. D. 1357-1358.
   The popular movement under Stephen Marcel.

      See STATES GENERAL OF FRANCE IN THE 14TH CENTURY.

PARIS: A. D. 1381.
   The Insurrection of the Maillotins.

   At the beginning of the reign of Charles VI. a tumult broke
   out in Paris, caused by the imposition of a general tax on
   merchandise of all kinds. "The Parisians ran to the arsenal,
   where they found mallets of lead intended for the defence of
   the town, and under the blows from which the greater part of
   the collectors of the new tax perished. From the weapons used
   the insurgents took the name of Maillotins. Reims, Châlons,
   Orleans, Blois, and Rouen rose at the example of the capital.
   The States-General of the Langue d' Oil were then convoked at
   Compiegne, and separated without having granted anything. The
   Parisians were always in arms, and the dukes [regents during
   the minority of the young king], powerless to make them
   submit, treated with them, and contented themselves with the
   offer of 100,000 livres. The chastisement was put off for a
   time." The chastisement of Paris and of the other rebellious
   towns was inflicted in 1382 (see FLANDERS: A. D. 1382) after
   the king and his uncles had subdued the Flemings at
   Rosebecque.

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      epoch 2, book 2, chapter 5._

PARIS: A. D. 1410-1415.
   The reign of the Cabochiens.
   The civil war of Armagnacs and Burgundians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARIS: A. D. 1418.
   The massacre of Armagnacs.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

PARIS: A. D. 1420-1422.
   King Henry V. of England and his court in the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

PARIS: A. D. 1429.
   The repulse of the Maid of Orleans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PARIS: A. D. 1436.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

PARIS: A. D. 1465.
   Siege by the League of the Public Weal.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

PARIS: A. D. 1496.
   Founding of the press of Henry Estienne.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1496-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1567.
   The Battle of St. Denis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

PARIS: A. D. 1572.
   The massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

PARIS: A. D. 1588-1589.
   Insurrection of the Catholic League.
   The Day of Barricades.
   Siege of the city by the king and Henry of Navarre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

PARIS: A. D. 1590.
   The siege by Henry IV.
   Horrors of famine and disease.
   Relief by the Duke of Parma.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

PARIS: A. D. 1594.
   Henry IV.'s entry.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

PARIS: A. D. 1636.
   Threatening invasion of Spaniards from the Netherlands.
   The capital in peril.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

PARIS: A. D. 1648-1652.
   In the wars of the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651;
      and 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1652.
   The Battle of Porte St. Antoine
   and the massacre of the Hotel de Ville.

      See FRANCE: .A. D. 1651-1653.

PARIS: A. D. 1789-1799.
   Scenes of the Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE), and after.

PARIS: A. D. 1814.
   Surrender to the Allied armies.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and MARCH-APRIL).

PARIS: A. D. 1815.
   The English and Prussian armies in the city.
   Restoration of the art-spoils of Napoleon.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (February).
   Revolution.
   Abdication and flight of Louis Philippe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARIS: A. D. 1848 (March-June).
   Creation of the Ateliers Nationaux.
   Insurrection consequent on closing them.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARIS: A. D. 1851.
   The Coup d'Etat.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

{2486}

PARIS: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Siege by the Germans.
   Capitulation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER),
      to 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

PARIS: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
   The insurgent Commune.
   Its Reign of Terror.
   Second Siege of the city.

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

   ----------PARIS: End--------

PARIS, Congress of (1856).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856;
      and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, Declaration of.

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PARIS, The Parliament of.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PARIS, Treaty of (1763).

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

PARIS, Treaty of (1783).

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

PARIS, Treaty of (1814).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

PARIS, Treaty of (1815).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

PARIS, University of.

      See EDUCATION: MEDIÆVAL.

PARISII, The.

      See PARIS: THE BEGINNING;
      and BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

   ----------Subject: Start--------

PARLIAMENT, The English:
   Early stages of its evolution.

   "There is no doubt that in the earliest Teutonic assemblies
   every freeman had his place. … But how as to the great
   assembly of all, the Assembly of the Wise, the Witenagemót of
   the whole realm [of early England]? No ancient record gives us
   any clear or formal account of the constitution of that body.
   It is commonly spoken of in a vague way as a gathering of the
   wise, the noble, the great men. But alongside of passages like
   these, we find other passages which speak of it in a way which
   implies a far more popular constitution. … It was in fact a
   body, democratic in ancient theory, aristocratic in ordinary
   practice, but to which any strong popular impulse could at any
   time restore its ancient democratic character. … Out of this
   body, whose constitution, by the time of the Norman Conquest,
   had become not a little anomalous, and not a little
   fluctuating, our Parliament directly grew. Of one House of
   that Parliament we may say more; we may say, not that it grew
   out of the ancient Assembly, but that it is absolutely the
   same by personal identity. The House of Lords not only springs
   out of, it actually is, the ancient Witenagemót. I can see no
   break between the two. … An assembly in which at first every
   freeman had a right to appear has, by the force of
   circumstances, step by step, without any one moment of sudden
   change, shrunk up into an Assembly wholly hereditary and
   official, an Assembly to which the Crown may summon any man,
   but to which, it is now strangely held, the Crown cannot
   refuse to summon the representatives of any man whom it has
   once summoned. As in most other things, the tendency to shrink
   up into a body of this kind began to show itself before the
   Norman Conquest, and was finally confirmed and established
   through the results of the Norman Conquest. But the special
   function of the body into which the old national Assembly has
   changed, the function of 'another House,' an Upper House, a
   House of Lords as opposed to a House of Commons, could not
   show itself till a second House of a more popular constitution
   had arisen by its side. Like everything else in our English
   polity, both Houses in some sort came of themselves. Neither
   of them was the creation of any ingenious theorist. … Our
   Constitution has no founder; but there is one man to whom we
   may give all but honours of a founder, one man to whose wisdom
   and self-devotion we owe that English history has taken the
   course which it has taken for the last 600 years. … That man,
   the man who finally gave to English freedom its second and
   more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in the
   greatest of her constitutional struggles, was Simon of
   Montfort, Earl of Leicester. If we may not call him the
   founder of the English Constitution, we may at least call him
   the founder of the House of Commons. … When we reach the 13th
   century, we may look on the old Teutonic constitution as
   having utterly passed away. Some faint traces of it indeed we
   may find here and there in the course of the 12th century; …
   but the regular Great Council, the lineal representatives of
   the ancient Mycel Gemót or Witenagemót, was shrinking up into
   a body not very unlike our House of Lords. … The Great Charter
   secures the rights of the nation and of the national Assembly
   as against arbitrary legislation and arbitrary taxation on the
   part of the Crown. But it makes no change in the constitution
   of the Assembly itself. … The Great Charter in short is a Bill
   of Rights; it is not what, in modern phrase, we understand by
   a Reform Bill. But, during the reigns of John and Henry III.,
   a popular element was fast making its way into the national
   Councils in a more practical form. The right of the ordinary
   freeman to attend in person had long been a shadow; that of
   the ordinary tenant-in-chief was becoming hardly more
   practical; it now begins to be exchanged for what had by this
   time become the more practical right of choosing
   representatives to act in his name. Like all other things in
   England, this right has grown up by degrees and as the result
   of what we might almost call a series of happy accidents. Both
   in the reign of John and in the former part of the reign of
   Henry, we find several instances of knights from each county
   being summoned. Here we have the beginning of our county
   members and of the title which they still bear, of knights of
   the Shire. Here is the beginning of popular representation, as
   distinct from the gathering of the people in their own
   persons; but we need not think that those who first summoned
   them had any conscious theories of popular representation. The
   earliest object for which they were called together was
   probably a fiscal one; it was a safe and convenient way of
   getting money. The notion of summoning a small number of men
   to act on behalf of the whole was doubtless borrowed from the
   practice in judicial proceedings and in inquests and
   commissions of various kinds, in which it was usual for
   certain select men to swear on behalf of the whole shire or
   hundred. We must not forget … that our judicial and our
   parliamentary institutions are closely connected. … But now we
   come to that great change, that great measure of Parliamentary
   Reform, which has left to all later reformers nothing to do
   but to improve in detail. We come to that great act of the
   patriot Earl which made our popular Chamber really a popular
   Chamber. …
{2487}
   When, after the fight of Lewes, Earl Simon, then master of the
   kingdom with the King in his safe keeping, summoned his famous
   Parliament [A. D. 1264-5], he summoned, not only two knights
   from every county, but also two citizens from every city and
   two burgesses from every borough. … Thus was formed that newly
   developed Estate of the Realm which was, step by step, to grow
   into the most powerful of all, the Commons' House of
   Parliament."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Growth of the English Constitution,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapters 6, 13-14._

      _R. Gneist,
      The English Parliament._

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 7._

      _A. Bissett,
      Short History of English Parliament,
      chapters 2-3._

      See, also,
      WITENAGEMOT; ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
      and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1244.
   Earliest use of the name.

   In 1244, "as had happened just one hundred years previously in
   France, the name 'parliamentum' occurs for the first time [in
   England] (Chron. Dunst., 1244; Matth. Paris, 1246), and
   curiously enough, Henry III. himself, in a writ addressed to
   the Sheriff of Northampton, designates with this term the
   assembly which originated the Magna Charta: 'Parliamentum
   Runemede, quod fuit inter Dom. Joh., Regem patrem nostrum et
   barones suos Angliæ' (Rot. Claus., 28 Hen. III.). The name
   'parliament' now occurs more frequently, but does not supplant
   the more indefinite terms 'concilium,' 'colloquium,' etc."

      _H. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 19, and foot-note, 2a (volume 1)._

   "The name given to these sessions of Council [the national
   councils of the 12th century] was often expressed by the Latin
   'colloquium': and it is by no means unlikely that the name of
   Parliament, which is used as early as 1175 by Jordan Fantosme,
   may have been in common use. But of this we have no distinct
   instance in the Latin Chroniclers for some years further,
   although when the term comes into use it is applied
   retrospectively."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 159._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1258.
   The Mad Parliament.

   An English Parliament, or Great Council, assembled at Oxford
   A. D. 1258, so-called by the party of King Henry III. from
   whom it extorted an important reorganization of the
   government, with much curtailment of the royal power.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 14, section 176 (volume 2)._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1264.
   Simon de Montfort's Parliament.
   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274;
   and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1275-1295.
   Development under Edward I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1376.
   The Good Parliament.

   The English parliament of 1376 was called the Good Parliament;
   although most of the good work it undertook to do was undone
   by its successor.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1388.
   The Wonderful Parliament.

   In 1387, King Richard II. was compelled by a great armed
   demonstration, headed by five powerful nobles, to discard his
   obnoxious favorites and advisers, and to summon a Parliament
   for dealing with the offenses alleged against them. "The
   doings of this Parliament [which came together in February,
   1388] are without a parallel in English history,—so much so
   that the name 'Wonderful Parliament' came afterwards to be
   applied to it. With equal truth it was also called 'the
   Merciless Parliament.'" It was occupied for four months in the
   impeachment and trial of ministers, judges, officers of the
   courts, and other persons, bringing a large number to the
   block.

      _J. Gairdner,
      Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter 2, section 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the 14th Century,
      chapter 11._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1404.
   The Unlearned Parliament.

   "This assembly [A. D. 1404, reign of Edward IV.] acquired its
   ominous name from the fact that in the writ of summons the
   king, acting upon the ordinance issued by Edward III in 1372,
   directed that no lawyers should be returned as members. He had
   complained more than once that the members of the House of
   Commons spent more time on private suits than on public
   business."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18, section 634 (volume 3)._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1413-1422.
   First acquisition of Privilege.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1413-1422.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1425.
   The Parliament of Bats.

   The English Parliament of 1425-1426 was so-called because of
   the quarrels in it between the parties of Duke Humfrey, of
   Gloucester, and of his uncle, Bishop Beaufort.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1471-1485.
   Depression under the Yorkist kings.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1558-1603.
   Under Queen Elizabeth.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1603.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1614.
   The Addled Parliament.

   In 1614, James I. called a Parliament which certain obsequious
   members promised to manage for him and make docile to his
   royal will and pleasure. "They were spoken of at Court as the
   Undertakers. Both the fact and the title became known, and the
   attempt at indirect influence was not calculated to improve
   the temper of the Commons. They at once proceeded to their old
   grievances, especially discussing the legality of the
   impositions (as the additions to the customs were called) and
   of monopolies. In anger at the total failure of his scheme,
   James hurriedly dissolved the Parliament before it had
   completed a single piece of business. The humour of the time
   christened this futile Parliament 'the Addled Parliament.'"

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, page 599._

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
   The Short Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1640.
   The Long Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1641.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1648.
   The Rump.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1649.
   Temporary abolition of the House of Peers.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1653.
   The Barebones or Little Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1659.
   The Rump restored.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1660-1740.
   Rise and development of the Cabinet
   as an organ of Parliamentary government.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1693.
   The Triennial Bill.

   In 1693, a bill which passed both Houses, despite the
   opposition of King William, provided that the Parliament then
   sitting should cease to exist on the next Lady Day, and that
   no future Parliament should last longer than three years. The
   king refused his assent to the enactment; but when a similar
   bill was passed the next year he suffered it to become a law.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 15 (volume 3)._

{2488}

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1703.
   The Aylesbury election case.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1707.
   Becomes the Parliament of Great Britain.
   Representation of Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1716.
   The Septennial Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1771.
   Last struggle against the Press.
   Freedom of reporting secured.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1727.
   Defeat of the first Reform measure.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1830.
   State of the unreformed representation.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1832.
   The first Reform of the Representation.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1867.
   The second Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1883.
   Act to prevent Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.

PARLIAMENT: A. D. 1884-1885.
   The third Reform Bill (text and comment).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

   ----------PARLIAMENT: End--------

PARLIAMENT, New Houses of.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

PARLIAMENT, The Scottish.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.

PARLIAMENT, The Drunken.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

PARLIAMENT OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

PARLIAMENT OF ITALIAN FREE CITIES.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

   "When the Carlovingian Monarchy had given place, first to
   Anarchy and then to Feudalism, the mallums, and the Champs de
   Mai, and (except in some southern cities) the municipal curiæ
   also disappeared. But in their stead there came into existence
   the feudal courts. Each tenant in capite of the crown held
   within his fief a Parliament of his own free vassals. … There
   was administered the seigneur's 'justice,' whether haute,
   moyenne, or basse. There were discussed all questions
   immediately affecting the seigneurie or the tenants of it.
   There especially were adopted all general regulations which
   the exigencies of the lordship were supposed to dictate, and
   especially all such as related to the raising tailles or other
   imposts. What was thus done on a small scale in a minor fief,
   was also done, though on a larger scale, in each of the feudal
   provinces, and on a scale yet more extensive in the court or
   Parliament holden by the king as a seigneur of the royal
   domain. … This royal court or Parliament was, however, not a
   Legislature in our modern sense of that word. It was rather a
   convention, in which, by a voluntary compact between the king
   as supreme suzerain and the greater seigneurs as his
   feudatories, an ordonnance or an impost was established,
   either throughout the entire kingdom, or in some seigneuries
   apart from the rest. From any such compact any seigneur might
   dissent on behalf of himself and his immediate vassals or, by
   simply absenting himself, might render the extension of it to
   his own fief impossible. … Subject to the many corrections
   which would be requisite to reduce to perfect accuracy this
   slight sketch of the origin of the great council or Parliament
   of the kings of France, such was, in substance, the
   constitution of it at the time of the accession of Louis IX.
   [A. D. 1226]. Before the close of his eventful reign, that
   monarch had acquired the character and was in full exercise of
   the powers of a law-giver, and was habitually making laws, not
   with the advice and consent of his council or Parliament, but
   in the exercise of the inherent prerogative which even now
   they began to ascribe to the French crown. … With our English
   prepossessions, it is impossible to repress the wonder, and
   even the incredulity, with which we at first listen to the
   statement that the supreme judicial tribunal of the kingdom
   could be otherwise than the zealous and effectual antagonist
   of so momentous an encroachment." The explanation is found in
   a change which had taken place in the character of the
   Parliament, through which its function and authority became
   distinctly judicial and quite apart from those of a council or
   a legislature. When Philip Augustus went to the Holy Land, he
   provided for the decision of complaints against officers of
   the crown by directing the queen-mother and the archbishop of
   Rheims, who acted as regents, to hold an annual assembly of
   the greater barons. "This practice had become habitual by the
   time of Louis IX. For the confirmation and improvement of it,
   that monarch ordered that, before the day of any such
   assemblage, citations should be issued, commanding the
   attendance, not, as before, of the greater barons exclusively,
   but of twenty-four members of the royal council or Parliament.
   Of those twenty-four, three only were to be great barons,
   three were to be bishops, and the remaining eighteen were to
   be knights. But as these members of the royal council did not
   appear to St. Louis to possess all the qualifications
   requisite for the right discharge of the judicial office, he
   directed that thirty-seven other persons should be associated
   to them. Of those associates, seventeen were to be clerks in
   holy orders, and twenty légistes, that is, men bred to the
   study of the law. The function assigned to the légistes was
   that of drawing up in proper form the decrees and other
   written acts of the collective body. To this body, when thus
   constituted, was given the distinctive title of the Parliament
   of Paris." By virtue of their superior education and training,
   the légistes soon gathered the business of the Parliament into
   their own hands; the knights and barons found attendance a
   bore and an absurdity. "Ennui and ridicule … proved in the
   Parliament of Paris a purge quite as effectual as that which
   Colonel Pride administered to the English House of Commons.
   The conseiller clercs were soon left to themselves, in due
   time to found, and to enjoy, what began to be called 'La
   Noblesse de la Robe.' Having thus assumed the government of
   the court, the légistes next proceeded to enlarge its
   jurisdiction. … By … astute constructions of the law, the
   Parliament had, in the beginning of the 14th century, become
   the supreme legal tribunal within the whole of that part of
   France which was at that time attached to the crown." In the
   reign of Philip the Long (1316-1322) the Parliament and the
   royal council became practically distinct bodies; the former
   became sedentary at Paris, meeting nowhere else, and its
   members were required to be constantly resident in Paris.
{2489}
   By 1345 the parliamentary counselors, as they were now called,
   had acquired life appointments, and in the reign of Charles
   VI. (1380-1422) the seats in the Parliament of Paris became
   hereditary. "At the period when the Parliament of Paris was
   acquiring its peculiar character as a court of justice, the
   meetings of the great vassals of the crown, to co-operate with
   the king in legislation, were falling into disuse. The king …
   had begun to originate laws without their sanction; and the
   Parliament, not without some show of reason, assumed that the
   right of remonstrance, formerly enjoyed by the great vassals,
   had now passed to themselves. … If their remonstrance was
   disregarded, their next step was to request that the projected
   law might be withdrawn. If that request was unheeded, they at
   length formally declined to register it among their records.
   Such refusals were sometimes but were not usually successful.
   In most instances they provoked from the king a peremptory
   order for the immediate registration of his ordinance. To such
   orders the Parliament generally submitted."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 8._

   "It appears that the opinion is unfounded which ascribes to
   the States [the 'States-General'] and the Parliaments a
   different origin. Both arose out of the National Assemblies
   held at stated periods in the earliest times of the monarchy
   [the 'Champs de Mars' and 'Champs de Mai']. … Certainly in the
   earliest part of [the 13th] century there existed no longer
   two bodies, but only one, which had then acquired the name of
   Parliament. The stated meetings under the First race were
   called by the name of Mallum or Mallus, sometimes Placitum
   [also Plaid], sometimes Synod. Under the Second race they were
   called Colloquium also. The translation of this term (and it
   is said also of Mallum) into Parliament occurs not before the
   time of Louis VI. (le Gros); but in that of Louis VIII., at
   the beginning of the 13th century, it became the usual
   appellation. There were then eleven Parliaments, besides that
   of Paris, and all those bodies had become merely judicial,
   that of Paris exercising a superintending power over the other
   tribunals. … After [1334] … the Parliament was only called
   upon to register the Ordinances. This gave a considerable
   influence to the Parliament of Paris, which had a right of
   remonstrance before registry; the Provincial Parliaments only
   could remonstrate after registry. … The Parliament of Paris,
   besides remonstrating, might refuse to register; and though
   compellable by the King holding a Bed of Justice, which was a
   more solemn meeting of the Parliament attended by the King's
   Court in great state [see BED OF JUSTICE), yet it cannot be
   doubted that many Ordinances were prevented and many modified
   in consequence of this power of refusal."

      _Lord Brougham,
      History of England and France under the House of Lancaster,
      note 66._

   For an account of the conflict between the Parliament of Paris
   and the crown which immediately preceded the French
   Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789.

      _ALSO IN: M. de la Rocheterie,
      Marie Antoinette,
      chapters 6-11._

PARMA, Alexander Farnese, Duke of, in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

   ----------PARMA: Start--------

PARMA:
   Founding of.

      See MUTINA.

PARMA: A. D. 1077-1115.
   In the Dominions of the Countess Matilda.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

PARMA: A. D. 1339-1349.
   Bought by the Visconti, of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PARMA: A. D. 1513.
   Conquest by Pope Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PARMA: A. D. 1515.
   Reannexed to Milanese and acquired by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PARMA: A. D. 1521.
   Retaken by the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
   Alienation from the Holy See and erection, with Placentia,
   into a duchy, for the House of Farnese.

   "Paul III. was the last of those ambitious popes who rendered
   the interests of the holy see subordinate to the
   aggrandizement of their families. The designs of Paul, himself
   the representative of the noble Roman house of Farnese, were
   ultimately successful; since, although partially defeated
   during his life, they led to the establishment of his
   descendants on the throne of Parma and Placentia for nearly
   200 years. … He gained the consent of the sacred college to
   alienate those states from the holy see in 1545, that he might
   erect them into a duchy for his natural son, Pietro Luigi
   Farnese; and the Emperor Charles V. had already, some years
   before, to secure the support of the papacy against France,
   bestowed the hand of his natural daughter, Margaret, widow of
   Alessandro de' Medici, upon Ottavio, son of Pietro Luigi, and
   grandson of Paul III. Notwithstanding this measure, Charles V.
   was not subsequently, however, the more disposed to confirm to
   the house of Farnese the investiture of their new possessions,
   which he claimed as part of the Milanese duchy; and he soon
   evinced no friendly disposition towards his own son-in-law,
   Ottavio. Pietro Luigi, the first duke of Parma, proved
   himself, by his extortions, his cruelties, and his
   debaucheries, scarcely less detestable than any of the ancient
   tyrants of Lombardy. He thus provoked a conspiracy and
   insurrection of the nobles of Placentia, where he resided; and
   he was assassinated by them at that place in 1547, after a
   reign of only two years. The city was immediately seized in
   the imperial name by Gonzaga, governor of Milan. … To deter
   the emperor from appropriating Parma also to himself, [Paul
   III.] could devise no other expedient than altogether to
   retract his grant from his family, and to reoccupy that city
   for the holy see, whose rights he conceived that the emperor
   would not venture to invade." But after the death of Paul
   III., the Farnese party, commanding a majority in the
   conclave. "by raising Julius III. to the tiara [1550],
   obtained the restitution of Parma to Ottavio from the
   gratitude of the new pope. The prosperity of the ducal house
   of Farnese was not yet securely established. The emperor still
   retained Placentia, and Julius III. soon forgot the services
   of that family. In 1551, the pope leagued with Charles V. to
   deprive the duke Ottavio of the fief which he had restored to
   him. Farnese was thus reduced … to place himself under the
   protection of the French; and this measure, and the indecisive
   war which followed, became his salvation. He still preserved
   his throne when Charles V. terminated his reign; and one of
   the first acts of Philip II., when Italy was menaced by the
   invasion of the duke de Guise [1556], was to win him over from
   the French alliance, and to secure his gratitude, by yielding
   Placentia again to him.
{2490}
   But a Spanish garrison was still left in the citadel of that
   place; and it was only the brilliant military career of
   Alessandro Faroese, the celebrated prince of Parma, son of
   duke Ottavio, which finally consummated the greatness of his
   family. Entering the service of Philip II., Alessandro
   gradually won the respect and favour of that gloomy monarch;
   and at length, in 1585, as a reward for his achievements, the
   Spanish troops were withdrawn from his father's territories.
   The duke Ottavio closed his life in the following year; but
   Alessandro never took possession of his throne. He died at the
   head of the Spanish armies in the Low Countries in 1592; and
   his son Ranuccio quietly commenced his reign over the duchy of
   Parma and Placentia under the double protection of the holy
   see and the monarchy of Spain."

      _G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 9._

PARMA: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

PARMA: A. D. 1635-1637.
   Desolation of the duchy by the Spaniards.
   The French alliance renounced.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

PARMA: A. D. 1725.
   Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PARMA: A. D. 1731.
   Possession given to Don Carlos, the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1735.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

PARMA: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Changes of masters.

   In the War of the Austrian Succession, Parma was taken by
   Spain in 1745; recovered by Austria in the following year (see
   ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747); but surrendered by Maria Theresa to
   the infant of Spain in 1748.

PARMA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.
   Papal excommunication of the Duke.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

PARMA: A. D. 1801.
   The Duke's son made King of Etruria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

PARMA: A. D. 1802.
   The duchy declared a dependency of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

PARMA: A. D. 1814.
   Duchy conferred on Marie Louise, the ex-empress of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

PARMA: A. D. 1831.
   Revolt and expulsion of Marie Louise.
   Her restoration by Austria.

   See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

PARMA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Abortive revolution.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

PARMA: A. D. 1859-1861.
   End of the duchy.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

   ----------PARMA: End--------

PARMA, Battle of (1734).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PARNASSUS.

      See THESSALY; and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PARNELL MOVEMENT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879, to 1889-1891.

PARRIS, Samuel, and Salem Witchcraft.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

PARSEES, The.

   "On the western coast of India, from the Gulf of Cambay to
   Bombay, we find from one hundred to one hundred and fifty
   thousand families whose ancestors migrated thither from Iran.
   The tradition among them is, that at the time when the Arabs,
   after conquering Iran and becoming sovereigns there,
   persecuted and eradicated the old religion [of the Avesta],
   faithful adherents of the creed fled to the mountains of
   Kerman. Driven from these by the Arabs (in Kerman and Yezd a
   few hundred families are still found who maintain the ancient
   faith), they retired to the island of Hormuz (a small island
   close by the southern coast, at the entrance to the Persian
   Gulf). From hence they migrated to Din (on the coast of
   Guzerat), and then passed over to the opposite shore. In the
   neighbourhood of Bombay and in the south of India inscriptions
   have been found which prove that these settlers reached the
   coast in the tenth century of our era. At the present time
   their descendants form a considerable part of the population
   of Surat, Bombay, and Ahmadabad; they call themselves, after
   their ancient home, Parsees, and speak the later Middle
   Persian."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 2 (volume 5)._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

PARSONS' CAUSE, The.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.

PARTHENII, The.

   This name was given among the Spartans to a class of young
   men, sons of Spartan women who had married outside the
   exclusive circle of the Spartiatæ. The latter refused, even
   when Sparta was most pressingly in need of soldiers, to admit
   these "sons of maidens," as they stigmatized them, to the
   military body. The Parthenii, becoming numerous, were finally
   driven to emigrate, and found a home at Tarentum, Italy.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      See TARENTUM.

   ----------PARTHENON: Start--------

PARTHENON AT ATHENS, The.

   "Pericles had occasion to erect on the highest point of the
   Acropolis, in place of the ancient Hecatompedon, a new festive
   edifice and treasure-house, which, by blending intimately
   together the fulfilment of political and religious ends, was
   to serve to represent the piety and artistic culture, the
   wealth and the festive splendour—in fine, all the glories
   which Athens had achieved by her valour and her wisdom. …

      See ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

   The architect from whose design, sanctioned by Pericles and
   Phidias, the new Hecatompedon was erected, was Ictinus, who
   was seconded by Callicrates, the experienced architect of the
   double line of walls. It was not intended to build an edifice
   which should attract attention by the colossal nature of its
   proportions or the novelty of its style. The traditions of the
   earlier building were followed, and its dimensions were not
   exceeded by more than 50 feet. In a breadth of 100 feet the
   edifice extended in the form of a temple, 226 feet from east
   to west; and the height, from the lowest stair to the apex of
   the pediment, amounted only to 65 feet. … The Hecatompedon, or
   Parthenon (for it went by this name also as the house of
   Athene Parthenos), was very closely connected with the
   festival of the Panathenæa, whose splendour and dignity had
   gradually risen by degrees together with those of the state. …
   The festival commenced with the performances in the Odeum,
   where the masters of song and recitation, and the either and
   flute-players, exhibited their skill, the choral songs being
   produced in the theatre. Hereupon followed the gymnastic
   games, which, besides the usual contests in the stadium,
   foot-race, wrestling-matches, &c., also included the
   torch-race, which was held in the Ceramicus outside the
   Dipylum, when no moon shone in the heavens; and which formed
   one of the chief attractions of the whole festival."

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

      See, also, ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

{2491}

PARTHENON: A. D. 1687.
   Destructive explosion during the siege of Athens
   by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

   ----------PARTHENON: End--------

PARTHENOPÉ.

      See NEAPOLIS AND PALÆPOLIS.

PARTHENOPEIAN REPUBLIC, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1708-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

PARTHIA, AND THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE.

   "The mountain chain, which running southward of the Caspian,
   skirts the great plateau of Iran, or Persia, on the north,
   broadens out after it passes the south-eastern corner of the
   sea, into a valuable and productive mountain-region. Four or
   five' distinct ranges here run parallel to one another, having
   between them latitudinal valleys, with glens transverse to
   their courses. The sides of the valleys are often well wooded;
   the flat ground at the foot of the hills is fertile; water
   abounds; and the streams gradually collect into rivers of a
   considerable size. The fertile territory in this quarter is
   further increased by the extension of cultivation to a
   considerable distance from the base of the most southern of
   the ranges, in the direction of the Great Iranic desert. … It
   was undoubtedly in the region which has been thus briefly
   described that the ancient home of the Parthians lay. …
   Parthia Proper, however, was at no time coextensive with the
   region described. A portion of that region formed the district
   called Hyrcania; and it is not altogether easy to determine
   what were the limits between the two. The evidence goes, on
   the whole, to show that while Hyrcania lay towards the west
   and north, the Parthian country was that towards the south and
   east, the valleys of the Ettrek and Gurghan constituting the
   main portions of the former, while the tracts east and south
   of those valleys, as far as the sixty-first degree of E.
   longitude, constituted the latter. If the limits of Parthia
   Proper be thus defined, it will have nearly corresponded to
   the modern Persian province of Khorasan. … The Turanian
   character of the Parthians, though not absolutely proved,
   appears to be in the highest degree probable. If it be
   accepted, we must regard them as in race closely allied to the
   vast hordes which from a remote antiquity have roamed over the
   steppe region of Upper Asia, from time to time bursting upon
   the south and harassing or subjugating the comparatively
   unwarlike inhabitants of the warmer countries. We must view
   them as the congeners of the Huns, Bulgarians and Comans of
   the ancient world; of the Kalmucks, Ouigurs, Usbegs, Eleuts,
   &c., of the present day. … The Parthians probably maintained
   their independence from the time of their settlement in the
   district called after their name until the sudden arrival in
   their country of the great Persian conqueror, Cyrus, [about
   554 B. C.]. … When the Persian empire was organised by Darius
   Hystaspis into satrapies, Parthia was at first united in the
   same government with Chorasmia, Sogdiana and Aria.
   Subsequently, however, when satrapies were made more numerous,
   it was detached from these extensive countries, and made to
   form a distinct government, with the mere addition of the
   comparatively small district of Hyrcania." The conquests of
   Alexander included Parthia within their range, and, under the
   new political arrangements which followed Alexander's death,
   that country became for a time part of the wide empire of the
   Seleucidæ, founded by Seleueus Nicator,—the kingdom of Syria
   as it was called. But about 250 B. C. a successful revolt
   occurred in Parthia, led by one Arsaces, who founded an
   independent kingdom and a dynasty called the Arsacid.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

   Under succeeding kings, especially under the sixth of the
   line, Mithridates I. (not to be confused with the Mithridatic
   dynasty in Pontus), the kingdom of Parthia was swollen by
   conquest to a great empire, covering almost the whole
   territory of the earlier Persian empire, excepting in Asia
   Minor and Syria. On the rise of the Roman power, the Parthians
   successfully disputed with it the domination of the east, in
   several wars (see ROME: B. C. 57-52), none of which were
   advantageous to the Romans, until the time of Trajan.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy: Parthia._

   Trajan (A. D. 115-117—see ROME: A. D. 96-138) "undertook an
   expedition against the nations of the East. … The success of
   Trajan, however transient, was rapid and specious. The
   degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before
   his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the
   mountains of Armenia to the Persian gulf. He enjoyed the
   honour of being the first, as he was the last, of the Roman
   generals who ever navigated that remote sea. His fleets
   ravaged the coasts of Arabia. … Every day the astonished
   senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations
   that acknowledged his sway. … But the death of Trajan soon
   clouded the splendid prospect. … The resignation of all the
   eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his
   [successor Hadrian's] reign. He [Hadrian] restored to the
   Parthians the election of an independent sovereign, withdrew
   the Roman garrisons from the provinces of Armenia, Mesopotamia
   and Assyria; and, in compliance with the precept of Augustus,
   once more established the Euphrates as the frontier of the
   empire."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 1._

   In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus at Rome, the
   Parthian king Vologeses III. (or Arsaces XXVII.) provoked the
   Roman power anew by invading Armenia and Syria. In the war
   which followed, the Parthians were driven from Syria and
   Armenia; Mesopotamia was occupied; Seleucia, Ctesiphon and
   Babylon taken; and the royal palace at Ctesiphon burned (A. D.
   165). Parthia then sued for peace, and obtained it by ceding
   Mesopotamia, and allowing Armenia to return to the position of
   a Roman dependency. Half a century later the final conflict of
   Rome and Parthia occurred. "The battle of Nisibis [A. D. 217],
   which terminated the long contest between Rome and Parthia,
   was the fiercest and best contested which was ever fought
   between the rival powers. It lasted for the space of three
   days. … Macrinus [the Roman emperor, who commanded] took to
   flight among the first; and his hasty retreat discouraged his
   troops, who soon afterwards acknowledged themselves beaten and
   retired within the lines of their camp.
{2492}
   Both armies had suffered severely. Herodian describes the
   heaps of dead as piled to such a height that the manœuvres of
   the troops were impeded by them, and at last the two
   contending hosts could scarcely see one another. Both armies,
   therefore, desired peace." But the peace was purchased by Rome
   at a heavy price. After this, the Parthian monarchy was
   rapidly undermined by internal dissensions and corruptions,
   and in A. D. 226 it was overthrown by a revolt of the
   Persians, who claimed and secured again, after five centuries
   and a half of subjugation, their ancient leadership among the
   races of the East. The new Persian Empire, or Sassanian
   monarchy, was founded by Artaxerxes I. on the ruins of the
   Parthian throne.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapters 3-21._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      Story of Parthia._

PARTHIAN HORSE.
PARTHIAN ARROWS.

   "Fleet and active coursers, with scarcely any caparison but a
   headstall and a single rein, were mounted by riders clad only
   in a tunic and trousers, and armed with nothing but a strong
   bow and a quiver full of arrows. A training begun in early
   boyhood made the rider almost one with his steed; and he could
   use his weapons with equal ease and effect whether his horse
   was stationary or at full gallop, and whether he was advancing
   towards or hurriedly retreating from his enemy. … It was his
   ordinary plan to keep constantly in motion when in the
   presence of an enemy, to gallop backwards and forwards, or
   round and round his square or column, never charging it, but
   at a moderate interval plying it with his keen and barbed
   shafts."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

   ----------PARTIES AND FACTIONS: Start--------

PARTIES AND FACTIONS, POLITICAL AND POLITICO-RELIGIOUS.
   Abolitionists.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Adullamites.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Aggraviados.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ammoniti.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anarchists.

      See ANARCHISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anilleros.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Corn-Law League.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839; and 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Federalists.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Masonic.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Renters.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Anti-Slavery.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780; 1776-1808;
      1828-1832; 1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Armagnacs.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Arrabiati.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Assideans.

      See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Barnburners.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Beggars.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: GUEUX.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bianchi.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bigi, or Greys.

      See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blacks, or Black Guelfs.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blue-Light Federalists.

      See BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Blues.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN;
      and VENEZUELA: 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Border Ruffians.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Boys in Blue.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bucktails.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Bundschuh.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Burgundians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1385-1415;
      and 1415-1419.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Burschenschaft.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Butternuts.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cabochiens.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Calixtines, or Utraquists.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Camisards.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Caps and Hats.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HATS AND CAPS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carbonari.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1808-1809.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carlists.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Carpet-baggers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cavaliers and Roundheads.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
      also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Charcoals.

      See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chartists.

      See ENGLAND: A.D. 1838-1842; and 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chasidim.

      See CHASIDIM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Chouans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Christinos.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846; and 1873-1885.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Claybanks and Charcoals.

      See CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clear Grits.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clichyans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Clintonians.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cods.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Communeros.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Communists.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Conservative (English).

      See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Constitutional Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Copperheads.

      See COPPERHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Cordeliers.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Country Party.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Covenanters.

      See COVENANTERS;
      also SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581, 1638, 1644-1645,
      and 1660-1661, to 1681-1689.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Crêtois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Decamisados.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
      1825-1828; 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Doughfaces.

      See DOUGHFACES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Douglas Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Equal Rights Party.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Escocés.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Essex Junto.

      See ESSEX JUNTO.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Farmers' Alliance.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Federalists.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; 1812;
      and 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Feds.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Fenians.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

      Feuillants. See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Free Soilers.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Free Traders.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1651-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gachupines.

      See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Girondists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gomerists.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Grangers.

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

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Graybacks.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greenbackers.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greens.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Greys.

      See BIGI.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Guadalupes.

      See GACHUPINES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Guelfs and Ghibellines.

      See GUELFS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Gueux, or Beggars.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Half-breeds.

         See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hard-Shell Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hats and Caps.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Home Rulers or Nationalists.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879;
      also ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886, and 1892-1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hooks and Cods, or Kabeljauws.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;
      and 1482-1493.

{2493}

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Huguenots.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561, to 1598-1599;
      1620-1622, to 1627-1628;
      1661-1680; 1681-1698; 1702-1710.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Hunkers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Iconoclasts of the 8th century.

      See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Iconoclasts of the 16th century.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Importants.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Independent Republicans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Independents, or Separatists.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Intransigentists.

      See INTRANSIGENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Irredentists.

      See IRREDENTISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacobins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacobites.

      See JACOBITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jacquerie.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Jingoes.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Kabeljauws.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: HOOKS AND CODS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Kharejites.

      See KHAREJITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Know Nothing.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ku Klux Klan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Land Leaguers.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Left.
   Left Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Legitimists.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Leliaerds.

      See LELIAERDS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Levellers.

      See LEVELLERS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberal Republicans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberal Unionists.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Libertines.

      See LIBERTINES OF GENEVA.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberty Boys.

      See PARTIES AND FACTIONS: SONS OF LIBERTY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Liberty Party.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1840-1847.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Locofocos.

      See LOCOFOCOS;
      and NEW YORK: A.D. 1835-1837.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Lollards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Malignants.

      See MALIGNANTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Marais, or Plain.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Marians.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Martling Men.

      See MARTLING MEN.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Melchites.

      See MELCHITES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Mountain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER);
      1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      and after, to 1794-1705 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Mugwumps.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Muscadins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Nationalists, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A.D. 1885-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Neri.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Nihilists.

      See NIHILISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Oak Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1708.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Opportunists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1893.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orangemen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1705-1706.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orleanists.

      See LEGITIMISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Ormée.

      See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Orphans.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ottimati.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Palleschi.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Patrons of Husbandry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1801.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Peep-o'-Day Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798, and 1784.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Pelucones.

      See PELUCONES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Petits Maîtres.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Piagnoni.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1408.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   The Plain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Plebs.

      See PLEBEIANS;
      also, ROME: THE BEGINNING, and after.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Politiques.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Popolani.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Populist or People's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Prohibitionists.

      See PROHIBITIONISTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Protectionists.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Puritan.

      See PURITANS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Republican (Earlier).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Ribbonmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Right.—Right Center.

      See RIGHT, LEFT, AND CENTER.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Roundheads.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);
      also, ROUNDHEADS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sansculottes.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Secesh.

      See BOYS IN BLUE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Serviles.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Shias.

      See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Silver-greys.
   Snuff-takers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Socialists.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Soft-Shell Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sons of Liberty.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765
      THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY,
      and 1864 (OCTOBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Stalwarts.

      See STALWARTS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Steel Boys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Sunni.

   See ISLAM.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Taborites.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434;
      and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tammany Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871;
      and TAMMANY SOCIETY.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tories.

      See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
      CONSERVATIVE PARTY;
      and TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Tugenbund.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
    Ultramontanists.

       See ULTRAMONTANE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   United Irishmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1703-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Utraquists.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434; and 1434-1457.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whigs (American).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whigs (English).

      See WHIGS.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whiteboys.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   White Hoods.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379,
      and 'WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Whites.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Wide Awakes.

      See WIDE AWAKES.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Woolly-heads.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Yellows;

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Yorkinos.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Young Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Young Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

PARTIES AND FACTIONS:
   Zealots.

      See ZEALOTS;
      and JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

PARTITION OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE, The Treaties of.

   See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

PARTITIONS OF POLAND.

   See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773; and 1793-1706.

PARU, The Great.

   See EL DORADO.

PASARGADÆ.

   One of the tribes of the ancient Persians, from which came the
   royal race of the Achæmenids.

      See PERSIA: ANCIENT PEOPLE AND COUNTRY.

PASCAGOULAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

PASCAL I.,
   Pope, A. D. 817-824.

   Pascal II., Pope, 1099-1118.

PASCUA.

      See VECTIGAL.

PASSAROWITZ, Peace of (1718).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

PASSAU: Taken by the Bavarians and French.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

PASSAU, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY; A. D. 1546-1552.

PASSÉ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

PASTEUR, Louis, and his work in Bacteriology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

PASTORS, The Crusade of the.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1252.

PASTRENGO, Battle of (1799).

      SEE FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

{2494}

PASTRY WAR, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

PATAGONIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

PATARA, Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

PATARENES.
PATERINI.

   About the middle of the 11th century, there appeared at Milan
   a young priest named Ariald who caused a great commotion by
   attacking the corruptions of clergy and people and preaching
   repentance and reform. The whole of Milan became "separated
   into two hotly contending parties. This controversy divided
   families; it was the one object which commanded universal
   participation. The popular party, devoted to Ariald and
   Landulph [a deacon who supported Ariald], was nicknamed
   'Pataria', which in the dialect of Milan signified a popular
   faction; and as a heretical tendency might easily grow out of,
   or attach itself to, this spirit of separatism so zealously
   opposed to the corruption of the clergy, it came about that,
   in the following centuries, the name Patarenes was applied in
   Italy as a general appellation to denote sects contending
   against the dominant church and clergy—sects which, for the
   most part, met with great favour from the people."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church
      (Bohn's edition),
      volume 6, page 67._

   "The name Patarini is derived from the quarter of the
   rag-gatherers, Pataria."

      _W. Moeller,
      History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
      page 253, foot-note._

   During the fierce controversy of the 11th century over the
   question of celibacy for the clergy (see PAPACY: A. D.
   1056-1122), the party in Milan which supported Pope Gregory
   VII. (Hildebrand) in his inflexible warfare against the
   marriage of priests were called by their opponents Patarines.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 6, chapter 3._

      See, also,
      CATHARISTS: ALBIGENSES;
      and PAULICIANS;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

PATAVIUM, Early knowledge of.

      See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PATAY, Battle of (1429).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

PATCHINAKS.
UZES.
COMANS.

   The Patchinaks, or Patzinaks, Uzes and Comans were successive
   swarms of Turkish nomads which came into southeastern Europe
   during the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, following and
   driving each other into the long and often devastated Danubian
   provinces of the Byzantine empire, and across the Balkans. The
   wars of the empire with the Patchinaks were many and seriously
   exhausting. The Comans are said to have been Turcomans, with
   the first part of their true name dropped off.

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900.

PATER PATRATUS.

      See FETIALES.

PATER PATRIÆ.

   "The first individual, belonging to an epoch strictly
   historical, who received this title was Cicero, to whom it was
   voted by the Senate after the suppression of the Catilinarian
   conspiracy."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 5._

PATERINI, The.

      See PATARENES.

PATNA, Massacre at (1763).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST, The.

   "It was not long after the dissolution of the Jewish state
   [consequent on the revolt suppressed by Titus] that it revived
   again in appearance, under the form of two separate
   communities mostly dependent upon each other: one under a
   sovereignty purely spiritual, the other partly temporal and
   partly spiritual,—but each comprehending all the Jewish
   families in the two great divisions of the world. At the head
   of the Jews on this side of the Euphrates appeared the
   Patriarch of the West: the chief of the Mesopotamian community
   assumed the striking but more temporal title of
   'Resch-Glutha,' or' Prince of the Captivity. The origin of
   both these dignities, especially of the Western patriarchate,
   is involved in much obscurity."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 18._

      See, also, JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PATRIARCHS.

      See PRIMATES.

PATRICIAN, The class.

   See COMITIA CURIATA;
   also, PLEBEIANS.

PATRICIAN, The Later Roman Title.

   "Introduced by Constantine at a time when its original meaning
   had been long forgotten, it was designed to be, and for a
   while remained, the name not of an office but of a rank, the
   highest after those of emperor and consul. As such, it was
   usually conferred upon provincial governors of the first
   class, and in time also upon barbarian potentates whose vanity
   the Roman court might wish to flatter. Thus Odoacer,
   Theodoric, the Burgundian king Sigismund, Clovis himself, had
   all received it from the Eastern emperor: so too in still
   later times it was given to Saracenic and Bulgarian princes.
   In the sixth and seventh centuries an invariable practice
   seems to have attached it to the Byzantine viceroys of Italy,
   and thus, as we may conjecture, a natural confusion of ideas
   had made men take it to be, in some sense, an official title,
   conveying an extensive though undefined authority, and
   implying in particular the duty of overseeing the Church and
   promoting her temporal interests. It was doubtless with such a
   meaning that the Romans and their bishop bestowed it upon the
   Frankish kings, acting quite without legal right, for it could
   emanate from the emperor alone, but choosing it as the title
   which bound its possessor to render to the church support and
   defence against her Lombard foes."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 4._

PATRICK, St., in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: 5-8TH CENTURIES;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: IRELAND.

PATRIMONY OF ST. PETER, The.

   The territory over which the Pope formerly exercised and still
   claims temporal sovereignty.

      See STATES OF THE CHURCH
      also, PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and after.

PATRIOT WAR, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

PATRIPASSIANS.

      See NOËTIANS.

PATRONAGE, Political.

      See STALWARTS.

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.

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

PATROONS OF NEW NETHERLAND, and their colonies.

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

PATZINAKS, The.

      See PATCHINAKS.

PAUL, St., the Apostle,
   the missionary labors of.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 54 (?).

   Paul, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1796-1801.

   Paul I., Pope, 757-767.

   Paul II., Pope, 1464-1471.

   Paul III., Pope, 1534-1549.

   Paul IV., Pope, 1555-1559.

   Paul V., Pope, 1605-1621.

{2495}

PAULETTE, The.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

PAULICIANS, The.

   "After a pretty long obscurity the Manichean theory revived
   with some modification in the western parts of Armenia, and
   was propagated in the 8th and 9th centuries by a sect
   denominated Paulicians. Their tenets are not to be collected
   with absolute certainty from the mouths of their adversaries,
   and no apology of their own survives. There seems however to
   be sufficient evidence that the Paulicians, though professing
   to acknowledge and even to study the apostolical writings,
   ascribed the creation of the world to an evil deity, whom they
   supposed also to be the author of the Jewish law, and
   consequently rejected all the Old Testament. … Petrus Siculus
   enumerates six Paulician heresies.

   1. They maintained the existence of two deities, the one evil,
      and the creator of this world; the other good, … the author
      of that which is to come.
   2. They refused to worship the Virgin, and asserted that
      Christ brought his body from heaven.
   3. They rejected the Lord's Supper.
   4. And the adoration of the cross.
   5. They denied the authority of the Old Testament, but
      admitted the New, except the epistles of St. Peter, and,
      perhaps, the Apocalypse.
   6. They did not acknowledge the order of priests.

   There seems every reason to suppose that the Paulicians,
   notwithstanding their mistakes, were endowed with sincere and
   zealous piety, and studious of the Scriptures. … These errors
   exposed them to a long and cruel persecution, during which a
   colony of exiles was planted by one of the Greek emperors in
   Bulgaria. From this settlement they silently promulgated their
   Manichean creed over the western regions of Christendom. A
   large part of the commerce of those countries with
   Constantinople was carried on for several centuries by the
   channel of the Danube. This opened an immediate intercourse
   with the Paulicians, who may be traced up that river through
   Hungary and Bavaria, or sometimes taking the route of
   Lombardy, into Switzerland and France. In the last country,
   and especially in its southern and eastern provinces, they
   became conspicuous under a variety of names; such as
   Catharists, Picards, Paterins, but, above all, Albigenses. It
   is beyond a doubt that many of these sectaries owed their
   origin to the Paulicians; the appellation of Bulgarians was
   distinctively bestowed upon them; and, according to some
   writers, they acknowledged a primate or patriarch resident in
   that country. … It is generally agreed that the Manicheans
   from Bulgaria did not penetrate into the west of Europe before
   the year 1000; and they seem to have been in small numbers
   till about 1140. … I will only add, in order to obviate
   cavilling, that I use the word Albigenses for the Manichean
   sects, without pretending to assert that their doctrines
   prevailed more in the neighbourhood of Albi than elsewhere.
   The main position is that a large part of the Languedocian
   heretics against whom the crusade was directed had imbibed the
   Paulician opinions. If anyone chooses rather to call them
   Catharists, it will not be material."

      _H. Hallam,
      Middle Ages,
      chapter 9, part 2, and foot-notes._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 54._

      See, also,
      CATHARISTS, and ALBIGENSES.

PAULINES, The.

      See BARNABITES.

PAULISTAS (of Brazil).

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

PAULUS HOOK, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

PAUSANIUS, The mad conduct of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

   ----------PAVIA: Start--------

PAVIA:
   Origin of the city.

   See LIGURIANS.

PAVIA: A. D. 270.
   Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PAVIA: A. D. 493-523.
   Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

      See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

PAVIA: A. D. 568-571.
   Siege by the Lombards.
   Made capital of the Lombard kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

PAVIA: A. D. 753-754.
   Siege by Charlemagne.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

PAVIA: A. D. 924.
   Destruction by the Hungarians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 900-924.

PAVIA: A. D. 1004.
   Burned by the German troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

PAVIA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PAVIA: A. D. 1395.
   Relation to the duchy of the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PAVIA: A. D. 1524-1525.
   Siege and Battle.
   Defeat and capture of Francis I., of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

PAVIA: A. D. 1527.
   Taken and plundered by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

PAVIA: A. D. 1745.
   Taken by the French and Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

PAVIA: A. D. 1796.
   Capture and pillage by the French.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

   ----------PAVIA: End--------

PAVON, Battle of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

PAVONIA, The Patroon colony of.

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

PAWNEES, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PAWTUCKET INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PAXTON BOYS, Massacre of Indians by the.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

PAYAGUAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PAYENS, Hugh de, and the founding of the Order of the Templars.

      See TEMPLARS.

PAYTITI, The Great.

      See EL DORADO.

PAZZI, Conspiracy of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

PEA INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEA RIDGE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PEABODY EDUCATION FUND.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867-1891.

PEACE, The King's.

      See KING'S PEACE;
      also LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1110, 1135, and 1300.

PEACE CONVENTION, The.

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

PEACE OF AUGUSTUS, AND PEACE OF VESPASIAN.

      See TEMPLE OF JANUS.

PEACE OF THE DAMES,
THE LADIES' PEACE.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

{2496}

PEACH TREE CREEK, Battle of.

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

PEACOCK THRONE, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

PEAGE,
PEAKE.

      See WAMPUM.

   ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: Start--------

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 287.
   The Bagauds of Gaul.

      See BAGAUDS.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1358.
   The Jacquerie of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1358.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1381.
   Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1450.
   Jack Cade's rebellion in England.

      See ENGLAND; A. D. 1450.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1492-1514.
   The Bundschuh in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1513.
   The Kurucs of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1521-1525.
   The Peasants' War in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

PEASANT REVOLTS: A. D. 1652-1653.
   Peasant War in Switzerland.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

   ----------PEASANT REVOLTS: End--------

PEC-SÆTAN.

   Band of Angles who settled on the moorlands of the Peak of
   Derbyshire.

PEDDAR-WAY, The.

   The popular name of an old Roman road in England, which runs
   from Brancaster, on the Wash, via Colchester, to London.

PEDIÆI.
THE PEDION.

   See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PEDRO
   (called The Cruel), King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1350-1369.

   Pedro, King of Portugal, 1357-1367.

   Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, 1822-1831;

   Pedro IV., King of Portugal, 1826

   Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, 1831-1889

   Pedro II., King of Portugal, 1667-1706.

   Pedro III., King-Consort of Portugal, 1777-1786.

   Pedro V., King of Portugal, 1853-1861.

   Pedro.

      See, also, PETER.

PEEL, Sir Robert: Administrations of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837, 1837-1839, 1841-1842, to 1846;
      TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1842, and 1845-1846;
      MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844.

PEEP-O'-DAY BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798; and 1784.

PEERS.
PEERAGE, The British.

   "The estate of the peerage is identical with the house of
   lords."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 2, page 184._

      See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF;
      and PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

PEERS OF FRANCE, The Twelve.

      See TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

PEGU, British acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

PEHLEVI LANGUAGE.

   "Under the Arsacids, the Old Persian passed into Middle
   Persian, which at a later time was known by the name of the
   Parthians, the tribe at that time supreme in Persia. Pahlav
   and Pehlevi mean Parthian, and, as applied to language, the
   language of the Parthians, i. e. of the Parthian era. … In the
   latest period of the dominion of the Sassanids, the recent
   Middle Persian or Parsec took the place of Pehlevi."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1._

PEHUELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

   ----------PEKIN: Start--------

PEKIN: The origin of the city.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

PEKIN: A. D. 1860.
   English and French forces in the city.
   The burning of the Summer Palace.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

   ----------PEKIN: End--------

PELAGIANISM.

   "Pelagianism was … the great intellectual controversy of the
   church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the
   fourth. … Everyone is aware that this controversy turned upon
   the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the
   relations between the liberty of man and the Divine power, of
   the influence of God upon the moral activity of men. … About
   the year 405, a British monk, Pelagius (this is the name given
   him by the Greek and Latin writers; his real name, it appears,
   was Morgan), was residing at Rome. There has been infinite
   discussion as to his origin, his moral character, his
   capacity, his learning; and, under these various heads, much
   abuse has been lavished upon him; but this abuse would appear
   to be unfounded, for judging from the most authoritative
   testimony, from that of St. Augustin himself, Pelagius was a
   man of good birth, of excellent education, of pure life. A
   resident, as I have said, at Rome, and now a man of mature
   age, without laying down any distinct doctrines, without
   having written any book on the subject, Pelagius began, about
   the year I have mentioned, 405, to talk much about free-will,
   to insist urgently upon this moral fact, to expound it. There
   is no indication that he attacked any person about the matter,
   or that he sought controversy; he appears to have acted simply
   upon the belief that human liberty was not held in sufficient
   account, had not its due share in the religious doctrines of
   the period. These ideas excited no trouble in Rome, scarcely
   any debate. Pelagius spoke freely; they listened to him
   quietly. His principal disciple was Celestius, like him a
   monk, or so it is thought at least, but younger. … In 411
   Pelagius and Celestius are no longer at Rome; we find them in
   Africa, at Hippo and at Carthage. … Their doctrines spread. …
   The bishop of Hippo began to be alarmed; he saw in these new
   ideas error and peril. … Saint Augustin was the chief of the
   doctors of the church, called upon more than any other to
   maintain the general system of her doctrines. … You see, from
   that time, what a serious aspect the quarrel took: everything
   was engaged in it, philosophy, politics, and religion, the
   opinions of Saint Augustin and his business, his self-love and
   his duty. He entirely abandoned himself to it." In the end,
   Saint Augustin and his opinions prevailed. The doctrines of
   Pelagius were condemned by three successive councils of the
   church, by three successive emperors and by two popes—one of
   whom was forced to reverse his first decision. His partisans
   were persecuted and banished. "After the year 418, we discover
   in history no trace of Pelagius. The name of Celestius is
   sometimes met with until the year 427; it then disappears.
   These two men once off the scene, their school rapidly
   declined."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization
      (translated by Hazlitt),
      volume 2, lecture. 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church, period 3,
      chapter 9._

      See, also,
      PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS.

{2497}

PELASGIANS, The.

   Under this name we have vague knowledge of a people whom the
   Greeks of historic times refer to as having preceded them in
   the occupancy of the Hellenic peninsula and Asia Minor, and
   whom they looked upon as being kindred to themselves in race.
   "Such information as the Hellenes … possessed about the
   Pelasgi, was in truth very scanty. They did not look upon them
   as a mythical people of huge giants—as, for example, in the
   popular tales of the modern Greeks the ancestors of the latter
   are represented as mighty warriors, towering to the height of
   poplar trees. There exist no Pelasgian myths, no Pelasgian
   gods, to be contrasted with the Greeks. … Thucydides, in whom
   the historic consciousness of the Hellenes finds its clearest
   expression, also regards the inhabitants of Hellas from the
   most ancient times, Pelasgi as well as Hellenes, as one
   nation. … And furthermore, according to his opinion genuine
   sons of these ancient Pelasgi continued through all times to
   dwell in different regions, and especially in Attica.

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

   "It is inevitable that modern historians should take widely
   divergent views of a nation concerning which tradition is so
   uncertain. Some writers, among whom is Kiepert, think that the
   Pelasgi were a Semitic tribe, who immigrated into Greece. This
   theory, though it explains their presence on the coast, fails
   to account for their position at Dodona and in Thessaly. … In
   another view, which has received the assent of Thirlwall and
   Duncker, Pelasgian is nothing more than the name of the
   ancient inhabitants of the country, which subsequently gave
   way to the title Achaean, as this in its turn was supplanted
   by the term Hellenes. … We have no evidence to support the
   idea of a Pelasgic Age as a period of simple habits and
   agricultural occupations, which slowly gave way before the
   more martial age of the Achaeans. The civilization of the
   'Achaean Age' exists only in the epic poems, and the 'Pelasgic
   Age' is but another name for the prehistoric Greeks, of whose
   agriculture we know nothing."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 2._

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

      See, also,
      DORIANS AND IONIANS;
      ŒNOTRIANS;
      ARYANS;
      ITALY: ANCIENT.

PELAYO, King of the Asturias (or Oviedo) and Leon, A. D. 718-737.

PELHAMS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745; and 1757-1760.

PELIGNIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

PELISIPIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

   ----------PELLA: Start--------

PELLA.

   A new Macedonian capital founded by Archelaus, the ninth of
   the kings of Macedonia.

PELLA:
   Surrendered to the Ostrogoths.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

   ----------PELLA: End--------

PELOPIDS.
PELOPONNESUS.

   "Among the ancient legendary genealogies, there was none which
   figured with greater splendour, or which attracted to itself a
   higher degree of poetical interest and pathos, than that of
   the Pelopids:—Tantalus, Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes, Agamemnon
   and Menelaus and Ægisthus, Helen and Klytaemnestra, Orestes
   and Elektra and Hermione. Each of these characters is a star
   of the first magnitude in the Grecian hemisphere. … Pelops is
   the eponym or name-giver of the Peloponnesus: to find an
   eponym for every conspicuous local name was the invariable
   turn of Grecian retrospective fancy. The name Peloponnesus is
   not to be found either in the Iliad or the Odyssey, nor any
   other denomination which can be attached distinctly and
   specially to the entire peninsula. But we meet with the name
   in one of the most ancient post-Homeric poems of which any
   fragments have been preserved—the Cyprian Verses. … The
   attributes by which the Pelopid Agamemnon and his house are
   marked out and distinguished from the other heroes of the
   Iliad, are precisely those which Grecian imagination would
   naturally seek in an eponymus—superior wealth, power,
   splendour and regality."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 7._

   "Of the … family of myths … that of Pelops [is] especially
   remarkable as attaching itself more manifestly and decisively
   than any other Heroic myth to Ionia and Lydia. We remember the
   royal house of Tantalus enthroned on the banks of the Sipylus,
   and intimately associated with the worship of the Phrygian
   Mother of the Gods. Members of this royal house emigrate and
   cross to Hellas from the Ionian ports; they bring with them
   bands of adventurous companions, a treasure of rich culture
   and knowledge of the world, arms and ornaments, and splendid
   implements of furniture, and gain a following among the
   natives, hitherto combined in no political union. … This was
   the notion formed by men like Thucydides as to the epoch
   occasioned by the appearance of the Pelopidæ in the earliest
   ages of the nation; and what element in this notion is either
   improbable or untenable. Do not all the traditions connected
   with Achæan princes of the house of Pelops point with one
   consent over the sea to Lydia?"

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

PELOPONNESIAN WAR, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 435-432, to B. C. 405;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 431, and after.

PELOPONNESUS, The Doric migration to.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

PELTIER TRIAL, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

PELUCONES, The.

   The name of one of the parties in Chilean politics, supposed
   to have some resemblance to the English Whigs.

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      page 279._

   ----------PELUSIUM: Start--------

PELUSIUM.

   "Behind, as we enter Egypt [from the east] is the treacherous
   Lake Serbonis; in front the great marsh broadening towards the
   west; on the right the level melancholy shore of the almost
   tideless Mediterranean. At the very point of the angle stood
   of old the great stronghold Pelusium, Sin, in Ezekiel's days,
   'the strength of Egypt' (xxx. 15). The most eastward
   Nile-stream flowed behind the city, and on the north was a
   port commodious enough to hold an ancient fleet. … As the
   Egyptian monarchy waned, Pelusium grew in importance, for it
   was the strongest city of the border. Here the last king of
   the Saïte line, Psammeticus III, son of Amasis, awaited
   Cambyses. The battle of Pelusium, which crushed the native
   power, may almost take rank among the decisive battles of the
   world. Had the Persians failed, they might never have won the
   command of the Mediterranean, without which they could
   scarcely have invaded Greece. Of the details of the action we
   know nothing."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 11._

   It was at Pelusium that Pompey, defeated and flying from
   Cæsar, was assassinated.

{2498}

PELUSIUM: B. C. 47.
   Taken by the king of Pergamus.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 616.
   Surprised by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

PELUSIUM: A. D. 640.
   Capture by the Moslems.

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

   ----------PELUSIUM: End--------

PEMAQUID PATENT.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631.

PEMAQUID PATENT: A. D. 1664.
   Purchased for the Duke of York.

      See NEW YORK A. D. 1664.

PEN SELWOOD, Battle of.

   The first battle fought, A. D. 1016, between the English king
   Edmund, or Eadmund, Ironsides, and his Danish rival Cnut, or
   Canute, for the crown of England. The Dane was beaten.

PENACOOK INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE IRISH CATHOLICS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

PENDLE, Forest of.

   A former forest in Lancashire, England, which was popularly
   believed to be the resort of "Lancashire Witches."

PENDLETON BILL, The.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

PENDRAGON.

      See DRAGON.

PENESTÆ, The.

   In ancient Thessaly there was "a class of serfs, or dependent
   cultivators, corresponding to the Laconian Helots, who,
   tilling the lands of the wealthy oligarchs, paid over a
   proportion of its produce, furnished the retainers by which
   these great families were surrounded, served as their
   followers in the cavalry, and were in a condition of
   villanage,—yet with the important reserve that they could not
   be sold out of the country, that they had a permanent tenure
   in the soil, and that they maintained among one another the
   relations of family and village. This … order of men, in
   Thessaly called the Penestæ, is assimulated by all ancient
   authors to the Helots of Luconia."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

PENINSULAR CAMPAIGN OF McCLELLAN.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862
      MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA;
      MAY: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE: VIRGINIA,
      JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA,
      JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA.

PENINSULAR WAR, The Spanish.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808 to 1812-1814.

PENN, William, and the colony of Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1681. and after.

PENNAMITE AND YANKEE WAR.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1790.

   ----------PENNSYLVANIA: Start--------

PENNSYLVANIA.
   The aboriginal inhabitants and their relations to the white
   colonists.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      DELAWARES, SUSQUEHANNAS, and SHAWANESE.

PENNSYLVANIA:A. D. 1629-1664.
   The Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE; A. D. 1620-1631, and after.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1632.
   Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1634.
   Partly embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

      See NEW ALBION.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1641.
   The settlement from New Haven, on the site of Philadelphia.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1673.
   Repossession of the Delaware by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
   The Proprietary grant to William Penn.

   "William Penn was descended from a long line of sailor
   ancestors. His father, an admiral in the British navy, had
   held various important naval commands, and in recognition of
   his services had been honored by knighthood. A member of
   Parliament, and possessed of a considerable fortune, the path
   of worldly advancement seemed open and easy for the feet of
   his son, who had received a liberal education at Oxford,
   continued in the schools of the Continent. Beautiful in
   person, engaging in manner, accomplished in manly exercises
   and the use of the sword, fortune and preferment seemed to
   wait the acceptance of William Penn. But at the very outset of
   his career the Divine voice fell upon his ears as upon those
   of St. Paul." He became a follower of George Fox, and one of
   the people known as Quakers or Friends. "Many trials awaited
   the youthful convert. His father cast him off. He underwent a
   considerable imprisonment in the Tower for 'urging the cause
   of freedom with importunity.' … In time these afflictions
   abated. The influence of his family saved him from the heavier
   penalties which fell upon many of his co-religionists. His
   father on his death-bed reinstated him as his heir. 'Son
   William,' said the dying man, 'if you and your friends keep to
   your plain way of preaching and living, you will make an end
   of the priests.' Some years later we find him exerting an
   influence at Court which almost amounted to popularity. It is
   evident that, with all his boldness of opinion and speech,
   Penn possessed a tact and address which gave him the advantage
   over most of his sect in dealings with worldly people. … In
   1680 his influence at Court and with moneyed men enabled him
   to purchase a large tract of land in east New Jersey, on which
   to settle a colony of Quakers, a previous colony having been
   sent out three years before to west New Jersey. Meanwhile a
   larger project filled his mind. His father had bequeathed to
   him a claim on the Crown for £16,000. Colonial property was
   then held in light esteem, and, with the help of some powerful
   friends, Penn was enabled so to press his claim as to secure
   the charter for that valuable grant which afterward became the
   State of Pennsylvania, and which included three degrees of
   latitude by five of longitude, west from the Delaware. 'This
   day,' writes Penn, January 5, 1681, 'my country was confirmed
   to me by the name of Pennsylvania, a name the king [Charles
   II.] would give it in honour of my father. I chose New Wales,
   being as this a pretty hilly country. I proposed (when the
   Secretary, a Welshman, refused to have it called New Wales)
   Sylvania, and they added Penn to it, and though I much opposed
   it, and went to the King to have it struck out and altered, he
   said 'twas past, and he would take it upon him. … I feared
   lest it should be looked upon as a vanity in me, and not as a
   respect of the King, as it truly was, to my father, whom he
   often mentions with praise.'
{2499}
   'In return for this grant of 26,000,000 of acres of the best
   land in the universe, William Penn, it was agreed, was to
   deliver annually at Windsor Castle two beaver-skins, pay into
   the King's treasury one fifth of the gold and silver which the
   province might yield, and govern the province in conformity
   with the laws of England and as became a liege of England's
   King. He was to appoint judges and magistrates, could pardon
   all crimes except murder and treason, and whatsoever things he
   could lawfully do himself, he could appoint a deputy to do, he
   and his heirs forever.' The original grant was fantastically
   limited by a circle drawn twelve miles distant from Newcastle,
   northward and westward, to the beginning of the 40th degree of
   latitude. This was done to accommodate the Duke of York, who
   wished to retain the three lower counties as an appanage to
   the State of New York. A few months later he was persuaded to
   renounce this claim, and the charter of Penn was extended to
   include the western and southern shores of the Delaware Bay
   and River from the 43rd degree of latitude to the Atlantic. …
   The charter confirmed, a brief account of the country was
   published, and lands offered for sale on the easy terms of 40
   shillings a hundred acres, and one shilling's rent a year in
   perpetuity. Numerous adventurers, many of them men of wealth
   and respectability, offered. The articles of agreement
   included a provision as to 'just and friendly conduct toward
   the natives.' … In April, 1681, he sent forward 'young Mr.
   Markham,' his relative, with a small party of colonists to
   take possession of the grant, and prepare for his own coming
   during the following year. … In August, 1682, Penn himself
   embarked."

      _Susan Coolidge
      (S. C. Woolsey),
      Short History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 2._

   "The charter [to Penn], which is given complete in Hazard's
   Annals, consists of 23 articles, with a preamble. … The grant
   comprises all that part of America, islands included, which is
   bounded on the east by the Delaware River from a point on a
   circle twelve miles northward of New Castle town to the 43°
   north latitude if the Delaware extends so far; if not, as far
   as it does extend, and thence to the 43° by a meridian line.
   From this point westward five degrees of longitude on the 43°
   parallel; the western boundary to the 40th parallel, and
   thence by a straight line to the place of beginning. … Grants
   Penn rights to and use of rivers, harbors, fisheries, etc. …
   Creates and constitutes him Lord Proprietary of the Province,
   saving only his allegiance to the King, Penn to hold directly
   of the kings of England, 'as of our castle of Windsor in the
   county of Berks, in free and common socage, by fealty only,
   for all services, and not in capite, or by Knight's service,
   yielding and paying therefore to us, our heirs and successors,
   two beaver-skins.' … Grants Penn and his successors, his
   deputies and lieutenants, 'free, full, and absolute power' to
   make laws for raising money for the public uses of the
   Province, and for other public purposes at their discretion,
   by and with the advice and consent of the people or their
   representatives in assembly. … Grants power to appoint
   officers, judges, magistrates, etc., to pardon offenders."

      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Clarkson,
      Memoirs of William Penn,
      volume 1, chapters 16-17._

      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 485-504._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681-1682.
   Penn's Frame of Government.

   Before the departure from England of the first company of
   colonists, Penn drew up a Frame of Government which he
   submitted to them, and to which they gave their assent and
   approval by their signatures, he signing the instrument
   likewise. The next year this Frame of Government was published
   by Penn, with a preface, "containing his own thoughts upon the
   origin, nature, object, and modes of Government. … The Frame,
   which followed this preface, consisted of twenty-four
   articles; and the Laws, which were annexed to the latter, were
   forty. By the Frame the government was placed in the Governor
   and Freemen of the province, out of whom were to be formed two
   bodies; namely, a Provincial Council and a General Assembly.
   These were to be chosen by the Freemen; and though the
   Governor or his Deputy was to be perpetual President, he was
   to have but a treble vote. The Provincial Council was to
   consist of seventy-two members. One third part, that is,
   twenty-four of them, were to serve for three years, one third
   for two, and the other third for one; so that there might be
   an annual succession of twenty-four new members, each third
   part thus continuing for three years and no longer. It was the
   office of this Council to prepare and propose bills, to see
   that the laws were executed, to take care of the peace and
   safety of the province, to settle the situation of ports,
   cities, market towns, roads, and other public places, to
   inspect the public treasury, to erect courts of justice,
   institute schools, and reward the authors of useful discovery.
   Not less than two thirds of these were necessary to make a
   quorum; and the consent of not less than two thirds of such
   quorum in all matters of moment. The General Assembly was to
   consist the first year of all the freemen, and the next of two
   hundred. These were to be increased afterwards according to
   the increase of the population of the province. They were to
   have no deliberative power; but, when bills were brought to
   them from the Governor and Provincial Council, to pass or
   reject them by a plain Yes or No. They were to present
   sheriffs and justices of the peace to the Governor, a double
   number for his choice of half. They were to be elected
   annually. All elections of members, whether to the Provincial
   Council or General Assembly, were to be by ballot. And this
   Charter or Frame of Government was not to be altered, changed,
   or diminished in any part or clause of it, without the consent
   of the Governor, or his heirs or assigns, and six parts out of
   seven of the Freemen both in the Provincial Council and
   General Assembly. With respect to the Laws, which I said
   before were forty in number, I shall only at present observe
   of them that they related to whatever may be included under
   the term 'Good Government of the Province'; some of them to
   liberty of conscience; others to civil officers and their
   qualifications; others to offences; others to legal
   proceedings, such as pleadings, processes, fines,
   imprisonments, and arrests; others to the natural servants and
   poor of the province. With respect to all of them it may be
   observed, that, like the Frame itself, they could not be
   altered but by the consent of the Governor, or his heirs, and
   the consent of six parts out of seven of the two bodies before
   mentioned."

      _T. Clarkson,
      Memoirs of William Penn,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Hazard,
      Annals of Pennsylvania,
      pages 558-574._

{2500}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
   Acquisition by Penn of the claims of the Duke of York to
   Delaware.

   "During the negotiations between New Netherland and Maryland
   in 1659, the Dutch insisted that, as Lord Baltimore's patent
   covered only savage or uninhabited territory, it could not
   affect their own possession of the Delaware region.
   Accordingly, they held it against Maryland until it was taken
   from them by the Duke of York in 1664. But James's title by
   conquest had never been confirmed to him by a grant from the
   king; and Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore,
   insisted that Delaware belonged to Maryland. To quiet
   controversy, the duke had offered to buy off Baltimore's
   claim, to which he would not agree. Penn afterward refused a
   large offer by Fenwick 'to get of the duke his interest in
   Newcastle and those parts' for West Jersey. Thus stood the
   matter when the Pennsylvania charter was sealed. Its
   proprietor soon found that his province, wholly inland, wanted
   a front on the sea. As Delaware was 'necessary' to
   Pennsylvania, Penn 'endeavored to get it' from the duke by
   maintaining that Baltimore's pretension 'was against law,
   civil and common.' Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore,
   was 'very free' in talking against the Duke of York's rights;
   but he could not circumvent Penn. The astute Quaker readily
   got from James a quit-claim of all his interest in the
   territory included within the proper bounds of Pennsylvania.
   After a struggle, Penn also gained the more important
   conveyances [August, 1682] to himself of the duke's interest
   in all the region within a circle of twelve miles diameter
   around Newcastle, and extending southward as far as Cape
   Henlopen. The triumphant Penn set sail the next week. At
   Newcastle he received from James's agents formal possession of
   the surrounding territory, and of the region farther south."

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      History of New York,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.
   Penn's arrival in his province.
   His treaty with the Indians.
   The founding of Philadelphia.

   Penn sailed, in person, for his province on the 1st of
   September, 1682, on the ship "Welcome," with 100 fellow
   passengers, mostly Friends, and landed at Newcastle after a
   dreary voyage, during which thirty of his companions had died
   of smallpox. "Next day he called the people together in the
   Dutch court-house, when he went through the legal forms of
   taking possession. … Penn's great powers being legally
   established, he addressed the people in profoundest silence.
   He spoke of the reasons for his coming—the great idea which he
   had nursed from his youth upwards—his desire to found a free
   and virtuous state, in which the people should rule
   themselves. … He spoke of the constitution he had published
   for Pennsylvania as containing his theory of government; and
   promised the settlers on the lower reaches of the Delaware,
   that the same principles should be adopted in their territory.
   Every man in his provinces, he said, should enjoy liberty of
   conscience and his share of political power. … The people
   listened to this speech with wonder and delight. … They had
   but one request to make in answer; that he would stay amongst
   them and reign over them in person. They besought him to annex
   their territory to Pennsylvania, in order that the white
   settlers might have one country, one parliament, and one
   ruler. He promised, at their desire, to take the question of a
   union of the two provinces into consideration, and submit it
   to an assembly then about to meet at Upland. So he took his
   leave. Ascending the Delaware … the adventurers soon arrived
   at the Swedish town of Upland, then the place of chief
   importance in the province. … Penn changed the name from
   Upland to Chester, and as Chester it is known. Markham and the
   three commissioners had done their work so well that in a
   short time after Penn's arrival, the first General Assembly,
   elected by universal suffrage, was ready to meet. … As soon as
   Penn had given them assurances similar to those which he had
   made in Newcastle, they proceeded to discuss, amend, and
   accept the Frame of Government and the Provisional Laws. The
   settlers on the Delaware sent representatives to this
   Assembly, and one of their first acts was to declare the two
   Provinces united. The constitution was adopted without
   important alteration; and to the forty laws were added
   twenty-one others, and the infant code was passed in form. …
   Penn paid some visits to the neighbouring seats of government
   in New York, Maryland, and the Jerseys. At West River, Lord
   Baltimore came forth to meet him with a retinue of the chief
   persons in the province. … It was impossible to adjust the
   boundary, and the two proprietors separated with the
   resolution to maintain their several rights. … The lands
   already bought from the Redmen were now put up for sale at
   four-pence an acre, with a reserve of one shilling for every
   hundred acres as quit-rent; the latter sum intended to form a
   state revenue for the Governor's support. Amidst these sales
   and settlements he recollected George Fox, for whose use and
   profit he set aside a thousand acres of the best land in the
   province. … Penn was no less careful for the Redskins. Laying
   on one side all ceremonial manners, he won their hearts by his
   easy confidence and familiar speech. He walked with them alone
   into the forests. He sat with them on the ground to watch the
   young men dance. He joined in their feasts, and ate their
   roasted hominy and acorns. … Having now become intimate with
   Taminent and other of the native kings, who had approved these
   treaties, seeing great advantages in them for their people, he
   proposed to hold a conference with the chiefs and warriors, to
   confirm the former treaties and form a lasting league of
   peace. On the banks of the Delaware, in the suburbs of the
   rising city of Philadelphia, lay a natural amphitheatre, used
   from time immemorial as a place of meeting for the native
   tribes. The name of Sakimaxing—now corrupted by the white men
   into Shackamaxon—means the place of kings. At this spot stood
   an aged elm-tree, one of those glorious elms which mark the
   forests of the New World. It was a hundred and fifty-five
   years old; under its spreading branches friendly nations had
   been wont to meet; and here the Redskins smoked the calumet of
   peace long before the pale-faces landed on those shores.
   Markham had appointed this locality for his first conference,
   and the land commissioners wisely followed his example.
{2501}
   Old traditions had made the place sacred to one of the
   contracting parties,—and when Penn proposed his solemn
   conference, he named Sakimaxing [or Shackamaxon] as a place of
   meeting with the Indian kings. Artists have painted, poets
   sung, philosophers praised this meeting of the white men and
   the red [October 14, 1682]. … All being seated, the old king
   announced to the Governor that the natives were prepared to
   hear and consider his words. Penn then rose to address them. …
   He and his children, he went on to say, never fired the rifle,
   never trusted to the sword; they met the red men on the broad
   path of good faith and good will. They meant no harm, and had
   no fear. He read the treaty of friendship, and explained its
   clauses. It recited that from that day the children of Onas
   and the nations of the Lenni Lenapé should be brothers to each
   other,—that all paths should be free and open—that the doors
   of the white men should be open to the red men, and the lodges
   of the red men should be open to the white men,—that the
   children of Onas should not believe any false reports of the
   Lenni Lenape, nor the Lenni Lenape of the children of Onas,
   but should come and see for themselves, … that if any son of
   Onas were to do any harm to any Redskin, or any Redskin were
   to do harm to a son of Onas, the sufferer should not offer to
   right himself, but should complain to the chiefs and to Onas,
   that justice might be declared by twelve honest men, and the
   wrong buried in a pit with no bottom,—that the Lenni Lenape
   should assist the white men, and the white men should assist
   the Lenni Lenape, against all such as would disturb them or do
   them hurt; and, lastly, that both Christians and Indians
   should tell their children of this league and chain of
   friendship, that it might grow stronger and stronger, and be
   kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, while the waters
   ran down the creeks and rivers, and while the sun and moon and
   stars endured. He laid the scroll on the ground. The sachems
   received his proposal for themselves and for their children.
   No oaths, no seals, no mummeries, were used; the treaty was
   ratified on both sides with yea,—and, unlike treaties which
   are sworn and sealed, was kept. When Penn had sailed, he held
   a note in his mind of six things to be done on landing:

   (1) to organize his government;
   (2) to visit Friends in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey;
   (3) to conciliate the Indians;
   (4) to see the Governor of New York, who had previously
       governed his province;
   (5) to fix the site for his capital city;
   (6) to arrange his differences with Lord Baltimore.

   The subject of his chief city occupied his anxious thought,
   and Markham had collected information for his use. Some people
   wished to see Chester made his capital; but the surveyor,
   Thomas Holme, agreed with Penn that the best locality in
   almost every respect was the neck of land lying at the
   junction of the Delaware and the Skuylkill rivers. … The point
   was known as Wicocoa. … The land was owned by three Swedes,
   from whom Penn purchased it on their own terms; and then, with
   the assistance of Holme, he drew his plan. … Not content to
   begin humbly, and allow house to be added to house, and street
   to street, as people wanted them, he formed the whole scheme
   of his city—its name, its form, its streets, its docks, and
   open spaces—fair and perfect in his mind, before a single
   stone was laid. According to his original design, Philadelphia
   was to cover with its houses, squares, and gardens, twelve
   square miles. … One year from the date of Penn's landing in
   the New World, a hundred houses had been built; two years
   later there were six hundred houses."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      History of William Penn,
      chapters 24-25._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      _Memoirs of the Penn Historical Society,
      volume 6 (The Belt of Wampum, &c.)._

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
   The Maryland Boundary question.
   Points in dispute with Lord Baltimore.

   "The grant to Penn confused the old controversy between
   Virginia and Lord Baltimore as to their boundary, and led to
   fresh controversies. The question soon arose: What do the
   descriptions, 'the beginning of the fortieth,' and 'the
   beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern
   latitude,' mean? If they meant the 40th and 43rd parallels of
   north latitude, as most historians have held, Penn's province
   was the zone, three degrees of latitude in width, that leaves
   Philadelphia a little to the south and Syracuse a little to
   the north; but if those descriptions meant the belts lying
   between 39° and 40°, and 42° and 43°, as some authors have
   held, then Penn's southern and northern boundaries were 39°
   and 42° north. A glance at the map of Pennsylvania will show
   the reader how different the territorial dispositions would
   have been if either one of these constructions had been
   carried out. The first construction would avoid disputes on
   the south, unless with Virginia west of the mountains; on the
   north it would not conflict with New York, but would most
   seriously conflict with Connecticut and Massachusetts west of
   the Delaware. The second construction involved disputes with
   the two southern colonies concerning the degree 39-40 to the
   farthest limit of Pennsylvania, and it also overlapped
   Connecticut's claim to the degree 41-42. Perhaps we cannot
   certainly say what was the intention of the king, or Penn's
   first understanding; but the Quaker proprietary and his
   successors adopted substantially the second construction, and
   thus involved their province in the most bitter disputes. The
   first quarrel was with Lord Baltimore. It has been well said
   that this 'notable quarrel' 'continued more than eighty years;
   was the cause of endless trouble between individuals; occupied
   the attention not only of the proprietors of the respective
   provinces, but of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, of the
   High Court of Chancery, and of the Privy Councils of at least
   three monarchs; it greatly retarded the settlement and
   development of a beautiful and fertile country, and brought
   about numerous tumults, which sometimes ended in bloodshed.'"

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 7._

   "As the Duke of York claimed, by right of conquest, the
   settlements on the western shores of the Bay of Delaware, and
   had, by his deed of 1682, transferred to William Penn his
   title to that country, embracing the town of Newcastle and
   twelve miles around it (as a reasonable portion of land
   attached to it), and as far down as what was then called Cape
   Henlopen; an important subject of controversy was the true
   situation of that cape, and the ascertainment of the southern
   and western boundaries of the country along the bay, as
   transferred by the Duke's deed. …
{2502}
   After two personal interviews in America, the Proprietaries
   separated without coming to any arrangement and with mutual
   recriminations and dissatisfaction. And they each wrote to the
   Lords of Plantations excusing themselves and blaming the
   other. … At length, in 1685, one important step was taken
   toward the decision of the conflicting claims of Maryland and
   Pennsylvania, by a decree of King James' Council, which
   ordered, 'that for a voiding further differences, the tract of
   land lying between the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, on
   the one side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the other, be divided
   into equal parts, by a line from the latitude of Cape Henlopen
   to the 40th degree of north latitude, the southern boundary of
   Pennsylvania by Charter; and that the one half thereof, lying
   towards the Bay of Delaware and the eastern sea, be adjudged
   to belong to his majesty, and the other half to Lord
   Baltimore, as comprised in his charter.' … This decree of King
   James, which evidently exhibits a partiality towards the
   claims of Penn, in decreeing the eastern half of the peninsula
   to his majesty, with whom Lord Baltimore could not presume,
   and indeed had declined to dispute, instead of to the
   Proprietary himself, by no means removed the difficulties
   which hung over this tedious, expensive, and vexatious
   litigation. For … there existed as much uncertainty with
   respect to the true situation of Cape Henlopen and the
   ascertainment of the middle of the Peninsula, as any points in
   contest."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoir on the Controversy between William Penn
      and Lord Baltimore,
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 1)._

      See, PENNSYLVANIA: 1760-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1691-1702.
   Practical separation of Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.
   Keith's schism.
   Penn deprived of his government, but restored.
   Early resistance to the proprietary yoke.

   "While New England and New York were suffering from war,
   superstition, and the bitterness of faction, Pennsylvania was
   not without internal troubles. These troubles originated with
   George Keith, a Scotch Quaker, formerly surveyor-general of
   East Jersey, and at this time master of the Quaker school at
   Philadelphia, and champion of the Quakers against Cotton
   Mather and the Boston ministers. Pressing the doctrines of
   non-resistance to their logical conclusion, Keith advanced the
   opinion that Quaker principles were not consistent with the
   exercise of political authority. He also attacked negro
   slavery as inconsistent with those principles. There is no
   surer way of giving mortal offense to a sect or party than to
   call upon it to be consistent with its own professed
   doctrines. Keith was disowned by the yearly meeting, but he
   forthwith instituted a meeting of his own, to which he gave
   the name of Christian Quakers. In reply to a 'Testimony of
   Denial' put forth against him, he published an 'Address,' in
   which he handled his adversaries with very little ceremony. He
   was fined by the Quaker magistrates for insolence, and
   Bradford, the only printer in the colony, was called to
   account for having published Keith's address. Though he
   obtained a discharge, Bradford, however, judged it expedient
   to remove with his types to New York, which now [1692] first
   obtained a printing press. The Episcopalians and other
   non-Quakers professed great sympathy for Keith, and raised a
   loud outcry against Quaker intolerance. Keith himself
   presently embraced Episcopacy, went to England, and took
   orders there. The Quaker magistrates were accused of hostility
   to the Church of England, and in the alleged maladministration
   of his agents, joined with his own suspected loyalty, a
   pretense was found for depriving Penn of the government—a step
   taken by the Privy Council without any of the forms, or,
   indeed, any authority of law, though justified by the opinions
   of some of the leading Whig lawyers of that day." Governor
   Fletcher of New York was now authorized for a time to
   administer the government of Pennsylvania and Delaware. "He
   accordingly visited Philadelphia, and called an Assembly in
   which deputies from both provinces were present. Penn's frame
   of government was disregarded, the Assembly being modeled
   after that of New York. Fletcher hoped to obtain a salary for
   himself and some contributions toward the defense of the
   northern frontier. The Quakers, very reluctant to vote money
   at all, had special scruples about the lawfulness of war. They
   were also very suspicious of designs against their liberties,
   and refused to enter on any business until the existing laws
   and liberties of the province had been first expressly
   confirmed. This concession reluctantly made, Fletcher obtained
   the grant of a small sum of money, not, however, without
   stipulating that it 'should not be dipped in blood.' … The
   suspicions against Penn soon dying away, the administration of
   his province was restored to him [1694]. But the pressure of
   his private affairs—for he was very much in debt—detained him
   in England, and he sent a commission to Markham [his relative
   and representative in Pennsylvania] to act as his deputy. An
   Assembly called by Markham refused to recognize the binding
   force of Penn's frame of government, which, indeed, had been
   totally disregarded by Fletcher. To the restrictions on their
   authority imposed by that frame they would not submit. A
   second Assembly [1696] proved equally obstinate, and, as the
   only means of obtaining a vote of the money required of the
   province toward the defense of New York, Markham was obliged
   to agree to a new act of settlement, securing to the Assembly
   the right of originating laws. A power of disapproval was
   reserved, however, to the proprietary, and this act never
   received Penn's sanction."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Penn,
      chapter 10
      (Library of American Bibliographies, series 2, volume 12)._

      _G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 16._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.
   The new Charter of Privileges and
   the city charter of Philadelphia.
   The divorcing of Delaware.
   Differences with the Proprietary.
   The death of Penn.

   It was not until 1699 that Penn returned to his domain after
   an absence of fifteen years, and his brief stay of two years
   was not made wholly agreeable to him. Between him and his
   colonists there were many points of friction, as was
   inevitable under the relationship in which they stood to one
   another. The assembly of the province would not be persuaded
   to contribute to the fortification of the northern frontier of
   the king's dominions (in New York) against the French and
   Indians. Penn's influence, however, prevailed upon that body
   to adopt measures for suppressing both piracy and illicit
   trade.
{2503}
   With much difficulty, moreover, he settled with his subjects
   the terms of a new constitution of government, or Charter of
   Privileges, as it was called. The old Frame of Government was
   formally abandoned and the government of Pennsylvania was now
   organized upon an entirely new footing. "The new charter for
   the province and territories, signed by Penn, October 25,
   1701, was more republican in character than those of the
   neighboring colonies. It not only provided for an assembly of
   the people with great powers, including those of creating
   courts, but to a certain extent it submitted to the choice of
   the people the nomination of some of the county officers. The
   section concerning liberty of conscience did not discriminate
   against the members of the Church of Rome. The closing section
   fulfilled the promise already made by Penn, that in case the
   representatives of the two territorial districts [Pennsylvania
   proper, held under Penn's original grant, and the Lower
   Counties, afterwards constituting Delaware, which he acquired
   from the Duke of York] could not agree within three years to
   join in legislative business, the Lower Counties should be
   separated from Pennsylvania. On the same day Penn established
   by letters-patent a council of state for the province, 'to
   consult and assist the proprietary himself or his deputy with
   the best of their advice and council in public affairs and
   matters relating to the government and the peace and
   well-being of the people; and in the absence of the
   proprietary, or upon the deputy's absence out of the province,
   his death, or other incapacity, to exercise all and singular
   the powers of government.' The original town and borough of
   Philadelphia, having by this time 'become near equal to the
   city of New York in trade and riches,' was raised, by patent
   of the 25th of October, 1701, to the rank of a city, and, like
   the province, could boast of having a more liberal charter
   than her neighbors; for the municipal officers were to be
   elected by the representatives of the people of the city, and
   not appointed by the governor, as in New York. The government
   of the province had been entrusted by Penn to Andrew Hamilton,
   also governor for the proprietors in New Jersey, with James
   Logan as provincial secretary, to whom was likewise confided
   the management of the proprietary estates, thus making him in
   reality the representative of Penn and the leader of his
   party. Hamilton died in December, 1702; but before his death
   he had endeavored in vain to bring the representatives of the
   two sections of his government together again. The Delaware
   members remained obstinate, and finally, while Edward Shippen,
   a member of the council and first mayor of Philadelphia, was
   acting as president, it was settled that they should have
   separate assemblies, entirely independent of each other. The
   first separate assembly for Pennsylvania proper met at
   Philadelphia, in October, 1703, and by its first resolution
   showed that the Quakers, so dominant in the province, were
   beginning to acquire a taste for authority, and meant to color
   their religion with the hue of political power." In December,
   1703, John Evans, a young Welshman, appointed deputy-governor
   by Penn, arrived at Philadelphia, and was soon involved in
   quarrels with the assemblies. "At one time they had for ground
   the refusal of the Quakers to support the war which was waging
   against the French and Indians on the frontiers. At another
   they disagreed upon the establishment of a judiciary. These
   disturbances produced financial disruptions, and Penn himself
   suffered therefrom to such an extent that he was thrown into a
   London prison, and had finally to mortgage his province for
   £6,000. The recall of Evans in 1709, and the appointment of
   Charles Gookin in his stead, did not mend matters. Logan,
   Penn's intimate friend and representative, was finally
   compelled to leave the country; and, going to England (1710),
   he induced Penn to write a letter to the Pennsylvania
   assembly, in which he threatened to sell the province to the
   crown, a surrender by which he was to receive £12,000. The
   transfer was in fact prevented by an attack of apoplexy from
   which Penn suffered in 1712. The epistle, however, brought the
   refractory assembly to terms." In 1717 Gookin involved himself
   in fresh troubles and was recalled. Sir William Keith was then
   appointed—"the last governor commissioned by Penn himself; for
   the great founder of Pennsylvania died in 1718. … After Penn's
   death his heirs went to law among themselves about the
   government and proprietary rights in Pennsylvania."

      _B. Fernow,
      Middle Colonies
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      Life of Penn
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 12),
      chapters 11-12._

      _R. Proud,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapters 14-22 (volumes 1-2)._

      _Penn and Logan Correspondence
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volumes 9-10)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1709-1710.
   Immigration of Palatines and other Germans.

      See PALATINES.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
   First settlements and missions of the Moravian Brethren.

      See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1743.
   Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1683-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   King George's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First movements beyond the mountains
   to dispute possession with the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
   Connecticut claims and settlements in the Wyoming Valley.
   The Pennamite and Yankee War.

   "The charter bounds [of Connecticut] extended west to the
   Pacific Ocean [see CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664]: this would
   have carried Connecticut over a strip covering the northern
   two fifths of the present State of Pennsylvania. Stuart
   faithlessness interfered with this doubly. Almost immediately
   after the grant of the charter, Charles granted to his brother
   James the Dutch colony of New Netherland, thus interrupting
   the continuity of Connecticut. Rather than resist the king's
   brother, Connecticut agreed and ratified the interruption. In
   1681 a more serious interference took place. Charles granted
   to Penn the province of Pennsylvania, extending westward five
   degrees between the 40th and 43rd parallels of north
   latitude." Under the final compromise of Penn's boundary
   dispute with Lord Baltimore the northern line of Pennsylvania
   was moved southward to latitude 42° instead of 43°; but it
   still absorbed five degrees in length of the Connecticut
   western belt.
{2504}
   "The territory taken from Connecticut by the Penn grant would
   be bounded southerly on the present map by a straight line
   entering Pennsylvania about Stroudsburg, just north of the
   Delaware Water Gap, and running west through Hazelton,
   Catawissa, Clearfield, and New Castle, taking in all the
   northern coal, iron, and oil fields. It was a royal heritage,
   but the Penns made no attempt to settle it, and Connecticut
   until the middle of the 18th century had no energy to spare
   from the task of winning her home territory 'out of the fire,
   as it were, by hard blows and for small recompense.' This task
   had been fairly well done by 1750, and in 1753 a movement to
   colonize in the Wyoming country was set on foot in Windham
   county. It spread by degrees until the Susquehanna Company was
   formed the next year, with nearly 700 members, of whom 638
   were of Connecticut. Their agents made a treaty with the Five
   Nations July 11, 1754, by which they bought for £2,000 a tract
   of land beginning at the 41st degree of latitude, the
   southerly boundary of Connecticut; thence running north,
   following the line of the Susquehanna at a distance of ten
   miles from it, to the present northern boundary of
   Pennsylvania; thence 120 miles west; thence south to the 41st
   degree and back to the point of beginning. In May, 1755, the
   Connecticut general assembly expressed its acquiescence in the
   scheme, if the king should approve it; and it approved also a
   plan of Samuel Hazard, of Philadelphia, for another colony, to
   be placed west of Pennsylvania, and within the chartered
   limits of Connecticut. The court might have taken stronger
   ground than this; for, at the meeting of commissioners from
   the various colonies at Albany, in 1754, the representatives
   of Pennsylvania being present, no opposition was made to a
   resolution that Connecticut and Massachusetts, by charter
   right, extended west to the South Sea. The formation of the
   Susquehanna Company brought out objections from Pennsylvania,
   but the company sent out surveyors and plotted its tract.
   Settlement was begun on the Delaware River in 1757, and in the
   Susquehanna purchase in 1762. This was a temporary settlement,
   the settlers going home for the winter. A permanent venture
   was made the next year on the flats below Wilkes Barre, but it
   was destroyed by the Indians the same year. In 1768 the
   company marked out five townships, and sent out forty settlers
   for the first, Kingston. Most of them, including the famous
   Captain Zebulon Butler, had served in the French and Indian
   War; and their first step was to build the 'Forty Fort.' The
   Penns, after their usual policy, had refused to sell lands,
   but had leased plots to a number of men on condition of their
   'defending the lands from the Connecticut claimants.' The
   forty Connecticut men found these in possession when they
   arrived in February, 1769, and a war of writs and arrests
   followed for the remainder of the year. The Pennsylvania men
   had one too powerful argument, in the shape of a four-pounder
   gun, and they retained possession at the end of the year.
   Early in 1770 the forty reappeared, captured the four-pounder,
   and secured possession. For a time in 1771 the Pennsylvania
   men returned, put up a fort of their own, and engaged in a
   partisan warfare; but the numbers of the Connecticut men were
   rapidly increasing, and they remained masters until the
   opening of the Revolution, when they numbered some 3,000. …
   But for the Revolution, the check occasioned by the massacre
   [of 1778—see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY)], and
   the appearance of a popular government in place of the Penns,
   nothing could have prevented the establishment of
   Connecticut's authority over all the regions embraced in her
   western claims. … The articles of confederation went into
   force early in 1781. One of their provisions empowered
   congress to appoint courts of arbitration to decide disputes
   between States as to boundaries. Pennsylvania at once availed
   herself of this, and applied for a court to decide the Wyoming
   dispute. Connecticut asked for time, in order to get papers
   from England; but congress overruled the motion, and ordered
   the court to meet at Trenton in November, 1782. After
   forty-one days of argument, the court came to the unanimous
   conclusion that Wyoming, or the Susquehanna district, belonged
   to Pennsylvania and not to Connecticut." Connecticut yielded
   to the decision at once; but, in 1786, when, following New
   York and Virginia, she was called upon to make a cession of
   her western territorial claims to congress (see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786) she compensated herself for the
   loss of the Susquehanna district by reserving from the cession
   "a tract of about the same length and width as the Wyoming
   grant, west of Pennsylvania, in northeastern Ohio …; and this
   was the tract known as the Western Reserve of Connecticut. It
   contained about 3,500,000 acres. … The unfortunate Wyoming
   settlers, deserted by their own State, and left to the mercy
   of rival claimants, had a hard time of it for years. The
   militia of the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania was
   mustered to enforce the writs of Pennsylvania courts; the
   property of the Connecticut men was destroyed, their fences
   were cast down, and their rights ignored; and the 'Pennamite
   and Yankee War' began. … The old Susquehanna Company was
   reorganized in 1785-86, and made ready to support its settlers
   by force. New Yankee faces came crowding into the disputed
   territory. Among them was Ethan Allen, and with him came some
   Green Mountain Boys." It was not until 1799 that the
   controversy came to an end, by the passage of an act which
   confirmed the title of the actual settlers.

      _A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Miner,
      History of Wyoming,
      letters 5-12._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Poetry and History of Wyoming,
      chapters 4-5._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
   Building of Fort Duquesne by the French.
   The first armed collision in the western valley.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755.
   The opening of the French and Indian War.
   Braddock's defeat.
   The frontier ravaged.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   French and Indian War.
   Conquest of Canada and the west.

      See CANADA: A. D.1755, 1756, 1756-1757, 1758, 1759, 1760;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

{2505}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1757-1762.
   The question of taxation in dispute with the proprietaries.
   Franklin's mission to England.

   "For a long while past the relationship between the Penns,
   unworthy sons of the great William, and now the proprietaries,
   on the one side, and their quasi subjects, the people of the
   Province, upon the other, had been steadily becoming more and
   more strained, until something very like a crisis had [in
   1757] been reached. As usual in English and Anglo-American
   communities, it was a quarrel over dollars, or rather over
   pounds sterling, a question of taxation, which was producing
   the alienation. At bottom, there was the trouble which always
   pertains to absenteeism; the proprietaries lived in England,
   and regarded their vast American estate, with about 200,000
   white inhabitants, only as a source of revenue. … The chief
   point in dispute was, whether or not the waste lands, still
   directly owned by the proprietaries, and other lands let by
   them at quitrents, should be taxed in the same manner as like
   property of other owners. They refused to submit to such
   taxation; the Assembly of Burgesses insisted. In ordinary
   times the proprietaries prevailed; for the governor was their
   nominee and removable at their pleasure; they gave him general
   instructions to assent to no law taxing their holdings, and he
   naturally obeyed his masters. But since governors got their
   salaries only by virtue of a vote of the Assembly, it seems
   that they sometimes disregarded instructions, in the sacred
   cause of their own interests. After a while, therefore, the
   proprietaries, made shrewd by experience, devised the scheme
   of placing their unfortunate sub-rulers under bonds. This went
   far towards settling the matter. Yet in such a crisis and
   stress as were now present in the colony … it certainly seemed
   that the rich and idle proprietaries might stand on the same
   footing with their poor and laboring subjects. They lived
   comfortably in England upon revenues estimated to amount to
   the then enormous sum of £20,000 sterling; while the colonists
   were struggling under unusual losses, as well as enormous
   expenses, growing out of the war and Indian ravages. At such a
   time their parsimony, their 'incredible meanness,' as Franklin
   called it, was cruel as well as stupid. At last the Assembly
   flatly refused to raise any money unless the proprietaries
   should be burdened like the rest. All should pay together, or
   all should go to destruction together. The Penns too stood
   obstinate, facing the not less resolute Assembly. It was
   indeed a deadlock! Yet the times were such that neither party
   could afford to maintain its ground indefinitely. So a
   temporary arrangement was made, whereby of £60,000 sterling to
   be raised the proprietaries agreed to contribute £5,000, and
   the Assembly agreed to accept the same in lieu or commutation
   for their tax. But neither side abandoned its principle.
   Before long more money was needed, and the dispute was as
   fierce as ever. The burgesses now thought that it would be
   well to carry a statement of their case before the king in
   council and the lords of trade. In February, 1757, they named
   their speaker, Isaac Norris, and Franklin to be their
   emissaries 'to represent in England the unhappy situation of
   the Province,' and to seek redress by an act of Parliament.
   Norris, an aged man, begged to be excused; Franklin accepted.
   … A portion of his business also was to endeavor to induce the
   king to resume the Province of Pennsylvania as his own. A
   clause in the charter had reserved this right, which could be
   exercised on payment of a certain sum of money. The colonists
   now preferred to be an appanage of the crown rather than a
   fief of the Penns." In this latter object of his mission
   Franklin did not succeed; but he accomplished its main
   purpose, procuring, after long delays, from the board of
   trade, a decision which subjected the proprietary estate to
   its fair share of taxation. He returned home after an absence
   of five years.

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Benjamin Franklin,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      part 3 (volume 1)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
   Settlement of the Maryland boundary dispute.
   Mason and Dixon's line.

   The decision of 1685 (see above), in the boundary dispute
   between the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland,
   "formed the basis of a settlement between the respective heirs
   of the two proprietaries in 1732. Three years afterward, the
   subject became a question in chancery; in 1750 the present
   boundaries were decreed by Lord Hardwicke; ten years later,
   they were, by agreement, more accurately defined; and, in
   1761, commissioners began to designate the limit of Maryland
   on the side of Pennsylvania and Delaware. In 1763, Charles
   Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, two mathematicians and surveyors
   [sent over from England by the proprietaries], were engaged to
   mark the lines. In 1764, they entered upon their task, with
   good instruments and a corps of axe men; by the middle of
   June, 1765, they had traced the parallel of latitude to the
   Susquehannah; a year later, they climbed the Little Alleghany;
   in 1767, they carried forward their work, under an escort from
   the Six Nations, to an Indian war-path, 244 miles from the
   Delaware River. Others continued Mason and Dixon's line to the
   bound of Pennsylvania on the south-west."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 16._

   "The east and west line which they [Mason and Dixon] ran and
   marked … is the Mason and Dixon's line of history, so long the
   boundary between the free and the slave States. Its precise
   latitude is 39° 43' 26.3" north. The Penns did not, therefore,
   gain the degree 39-40, but they did gain a zone one-fourth of
   a degree in width, south of the 40th degree, to their western
   limit, because the decision of 1760 controlled that of 1779,
   made with Virginia. … Pennsylvania is narrower by nearly
   three-fourths of a degree than the charter of 1681
   contemplated. No doubt, however, the Penns considered the
   narrow strip gained at the south more valuable than the broad
   one lost at the north."

      _B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      page 50._

      _Pennsylvania Archives,
      volume 4, pages 1-37._

      _W. H. Browne,
      Maryland,
      pages 238-239._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.
   Bouquet's expedition.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775;
      1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

{2506}

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768.
   The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1768-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1774.
   The western territorial claims of Virginia pursued.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1775.
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken upon the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.
   The end of royal and proprietary government.
   Adoption of a State Constitution.

   "Congress, on the 15th of May, 1776, recommended … 'the
   respective Assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies,
   where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their
   affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such
   government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of
   the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their
   constituents in particular, and America in general.' A
   diversity of opinion existed in the Province upon this
   resolution. … The Assembly referred the resolve of Congress to
   a committee, but took no further action, nor did the committee
   ever make a report. 'The old Assembly,' says Westcott, 'which
   had adjourned on the 14th of June, to meet on the 14th of
   August, could not obtain a quorum, and adjourned again to the
   23d of September. It then interposed a feeble remonstrance
   against the invasion of its prerogatives by the Convention,
   but it was a dying protest. The Declaration of Independence
   had given the old State Government a mortal blow, and it soon
   expired without a sigh—thus ending forever the Proprietary and
   royal authority in Pennsylvania.' In the meantime, the
   Committee of Correspondence for Philadelphia issued a circular
   to all the county committees for a conference in that city on
   Tuesday, the 18th day of June. … The Conference at once
   unanimously resolved, 'That the present government of this
   Province is not competent to the exigencies of our affairs,
   and that it is necessary that a Provincial Convention be
   called by this Conference for the express purpose of forming a
   new government in this Province on the authority of the people
   only.' Acting upon these resolves, preparations were
   immediately taken to secure a proper representation in the
   Convention. … Every voter was obliged to take an oath of
   renunciation of the authority of George III., and one of
   allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, and a religious test
   was prescribed for all members of the Convention. … The
   delegates to the Convention to frame a constitution for the
   new government consisted of the representative men of the
   State—men selected for their ability, patriotism, and personal
   popularity. They met at Philadelphia, on the 15th of July, …
   and organized by the selection of Benjamin Franklin,
   president, George Ross, vice-president, and John Morris and
   Jacob Garrigues, secretaries. … On the 28th of September, the
   Convention completed its labors by adopting the first State
   Constitution, which went into immediate effect, without a vote
   of the people. … The legislative power of the frame of
   government was vested in a General Assembly of one House,
   elected annually. The supreme executive power was vested in a
   President, chosen annually by the Assembly and Council, by
   joint ballot—the Council consisting of twelve persons, elected
   in classes, for a term of three years. A Council of Censors,
   consisting of two persons from each city and county, was to be
   elected in 1783, and in every seventh year thereafter, whose
   duty it was to make inquiry as to whether the Constitution had
   been preserved inviolate during the last septennary, and
   whether the executive or legislative branches of the
   government had performed their duties."

      _W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   The Declaration of Independence.
   The struggle for the Hudson and the Delaware.
   Battles of the Brandywine and Germantown.
   The British in Philadelphia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 and 1777;
      and PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia.
   The war on the northern border.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, to 1779.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1778 (July).
   The Wyoming Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
   Final settlement of boundaries with Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779–1786.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780.
   Emancipation of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The treason of Arnold.
   The war in the south.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1781.
   Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (JANUARY).

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1787.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1780.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.
   The Whiskey Insurrection.

   "In every part of the United States except Pennsylvania, and
   in by far the larger number of the counties of that state, the
   officers of the Federal Government had been able to carry the
   excise law [passed in March, 1791, on the recommendation of
   Hamilton], unpopular as it generally was, into execution; but
   resistance having been made in a few of the western counties,
   and their defiance of law increasing with the forbearance of
   the Government in that State, prosecutions had been ordered
   against the offenders. In July, the Marshal of the District,
   Lenox, who, was serving the process, and General Neville, the
   Inspector, were attacked by a body of armed men, and compelled
   to desist from the execution of their official duties. The
   next day, a much larger number, amounting to 500 men,
   assembled, and endeavored to seize the person of General
   Neyille. Failing in that, they exacted a promise from the
   Marshal that he would serve no more process on the west side
   of the Alleghany; and attacking the Inspector's house, they
   set fire to it, and destroyed it with its contents. On this
   occasion, the leader of the assailants was killed, and several
   of them wounded. Both the Inspector and Marshal were required
   to resign; but they refused, and sought safety in flight.
{2507}
   A meeting was held a few days later, at Mingo Creek
   meeting-house, which recommended to all the townships in the
   four western counties of Pennsylvania, and the neighboring
   counties of Virginia, to meet, by their delegates, at
   Parkinson's ferry, on the Monongahela, on the 14th of August,
   'to take into consideration the situation of the western
   country.' Three days after this meeting, a party of the
   malcontents seized the mail, carried it to Canonsburg, seven
   miles distant, and there opened the letters from Pittsburg to
   Philadelphia, to discover who were hostile to them. They then
   addressed a circular letter to the officers of the militia in
   the disaffected counties, informing them of the intercepted
   letters, and calling on them to rendezvous at Braddock's Field
   on the 1st of August, with arms in good order, and four days'
   provision. … This circular was signed by seven persons, but
   the prime mover was David Bradford, a lawyer, who was the
   prosecuting attorney of Washington County. In consequence of
   this summons, a large body of men, which has been estimated at
   from five to seven thousand, assembled at Braddock's Field on
   the day appointed. … Bradford took upon himself the military
   command, which was readily yielded to him. … Bradford proposed
   the expulsion from Pittsburg of several persons whose
   hostility had been discovered by the letters they had
   intercepted; but his motion was carried only as to two
   persons, Gibson and Neville, son of the Inspector. They then
   decided to proceed to Pittsburg. Some assented to this, to
   prevent the mischief which others meditated. But for this, and
   the liberal refreshments furnished by the people of Pittsburg,
   it was thought that the town would have been burnt. … The
   President issued a proclamation reciting the acts of treason,
   commanding the insurgents to disperse, and warning others
   against abetting them. He, at the same time, wishing to try
   lenient measures, appointed three Commissioners to repair to
   the scene of the insurrection, to confer with the insurgents,
   and to offer them pardon on condition of a satisfactory
   assurance of their future obedience to the laws. … Governor
   Mifflin followed the example of the President in appointing
   Commissioners to confer with the insurgents, with power to
   grant pardons, and he issued an admonitory proclamation, after
   which he convened the Legislature to meet on the 3d of
   November. The Federal and the State Commissioners reached the
   insurgent district while the convention at Parkinson's ferry
   was in session. It assembled on the 14th of August, and
   consisted of 226 delegates, all from the western counties of
   Pennsylvania, except six from Ohio County in Virginia. They
   appointed Cook their Chairman, and Albert Gallatin, Secretary,
   though he at first declined the appointment. … The
   Commissioners required … an explicit assurance of submission
   to the laws; a recommendation to their associates of a like
   submission; and meetings of the citizens to be held to confirm
   these assurances. All public prosecutions were to be suspended
   until the following July, when, if there had been no violation
   of the law in the interval, there should be a general amnesty.
   These terms were deemed reasonable by the subcommittee: but
   before the meeting of sixty took place, a body of armed men
   entered Brownsville, the place appointed for the meeting, and
   so alarmed the friends of accommodation, that they seemed to
   be driven from their purpose. Gallatin, however, was an
   exception; and the next day, he addressed the committee of
   sixty in favor of acceding to the proposals of the
   Commissioners; but nothing more could be effected than to pass
   a resolution that it would be to the interest of the people to
   accept those terms, without any promise or pledge of
   submission. … On the whole, it was the opinion of the
   well–disposed part of the population, that the inspection laws
   could not be executed in that part of the State; and that the
   interposition of the militia was indispensable. The
   Commissioners returned to Philadelphia, and on their report
   the President issued a second proclamation, on the 25th of
   September, in which he announced, the march of the militia,
   and again commanded obedience to the laws. The order requiring
   the militia to march was promptly obeyed in all the States
   except Pennsylvania, in which some pleaded defects in the
   militia law; but even in that State, after the Legislature
   met, the Governor was authorised to accept the services of
   volunteers. … The news that the militia were on the march
   increased the numbers of the moderate party. … Bradford, who
   was foremost in urging resistance to the law, was the first to
   seek safety in flight. He sought refuge in New Orleans. A
   second convention was called to meet at Parkinson's ferry on
   the second of October. A resolution of submission was passed,
   and a committee of two was appointed to convey it to the
   President at Carlisle. … On the return of the committee, the
   Parkinson ferry convention met for the third time, and
   resolutions were passed, declaring the sufficiency of the
   civil authorities to execute the laws; affirming that the
   excise duties would be paid, and recommending all delinquents
   to surrender themselves. … Lee, then, as Commander-in-chief,
   issued a proclamation granting an amnesty to all who had
   submitted to the laws; and calling upon the inhabitants to
   take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Orders were
   issued and executed to seize those offenders who had not
   signed the declaration of submission, and send them to
   Philadelphia; and thus was this purpose of resisting the
   execution of the excise law completely defeated, and entire
   order restored in less than four months from the time of the
   burning of Neville's house, which was the first overt act of
   resistance. It was, however, deemed prudent to retain a force
   of 2,500 militia during the winter, under General Morgan, to
   prevent a return of that spirit of disaffection which had so
   long prevailed in Pennsylvania."

      _George Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _T. Ward,
      The Insurrection of 1794
      (Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 6)._

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1861.
   First troops sent to Washington.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1863.
   Lee's invasion.
   Battle of Gettysburg.

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

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1864.
   Early's invasion.
   Burning of Chambersburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

   ----------PENNSYLVANIA: End--------

{2508}

PENNY POSTAGE.

      See POST.

PENSACOLA: Unauthorized capture by General Jackson (1818).

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PENTAPOLIS IN AFRICA.

      See CYRENE.

PENTATHLON, The.

   The five exercises of running, leaping, wrestling, throwing
   the diskos, and throwing the spear, formed what the Greeks
   called the pentathlon. "At the four great national festivals
   all these had to be gone through on one and the same day, and
   the prize was awarded to him only who had been victorious in
   all of them."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 52._

PEORIAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

PEPIN.

      See PIPPIN.

PEPLUM, The.

   "The peplum constituted the outermost covering of the body.
   Among the Greeks it was worn in common by both sexes, but was
   chiefly reserved for occasions of ceremony or of public
   appearance, and, as well in its texture as in its shape,
   seemed to answer to our shawl. When very long and ample, so as
   to admit of being wound twice round the body—first under the
   arms, and the second time over the shoulders—it assumed the
   name of diplax. In rainy or cold weather it was drawn over the
   head. At other times this peculiar mode of wearing it was
   expressive of humility or of grief."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1._

PEPPERELL, Sir William, and the expedition against Louisburg.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745.

PEQUOTS.
PEQUOT WAR.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and SHAWANESE:
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

PERA, The Genoese established at.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

PERCEVAL MINISTRY, The.

      See: ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PERDICCAS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

PERDUELLIO, The Crime of.

   "'Perduellis,' derived from 'duellum' e. q. 'bellum,' properly
   speaking signifies 'a public enemy,' and hence Perduellio was
   employed [among the Romans] in legal phraseology to denote the
   crime of hostility to one's native country, and is usually
   represented as corresponding, in a general sense, to our term
   High Treason."

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

      See MAJESTAS.

PERED, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

PEREGRINI.

   "The term 'Peregrinus,' with which in early times 'Hostis'
   (i. e. stranger) was synonymous, embraced, in its widest
   acceptation, everyone possessed of personal freedom who was
   not a Civis Romanus. Generally, however, Peregrinus was not
   applied to all foreigners indiscriminately, but to those
   persons only, who, although not Cives, were connected with
   Rome."

      _w. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, CIVES ROMANI.

   ----------PERGAMUM: Start--------

PERGAMUM,
PERGAMUS.

   This ancient city in northwestern Asia Minor, within the
   province of Mysia, on the north of the river Caïcus, became,
   during the troubled century that followed the death of
   Alexander, first the seat of an important principality, and
   then the capital of a rich and flourishing kingdom, to which
   it gave its name. It seems to have owed its fortunes to a
   great deposit of treasures—part of the plunder of Asia—which
   Lysimachus, one of the generals and successors of Alexander,
   left for safe keeping within its walls, under the care of an
   eunuch, named Philetærus. This Philetærus found excuses, after
   a time, for renouncing allegiance to Lysimachus, appropriating
   the treasures and using them to make himself lord of Pergamum.
   He was succeeded by a nephew, Eumenes, and he in turn by his
   cousin Attalus. The latter, "who had succeeded to the
   possession of Pergamum in 241 [B. C.], met and vanquished the
   Galatians in a great battle, which gave him such popularity
   that he was able to assume the title of king, and extend his
   influence far beyond his inherited dominion. … The court of
   Pergamum continued to flourish till it controlled the larger
   part of Asia Minor. In his long reign this king represented
   almost as much as the King of Egypt the art and culture of
   Hellenism. His great victory over the Galatians was celebrated
   by the dedication of so many splendid offerings to various
   shrines, that the Pergamene school made a distinct impression
   upon the world's taste. Critics have enumerated seventeen
   remaining types, which appear to have come from statues of
   that time—the best known is the so–called 'Dying Gladiator,'
   who is really a dying Galatian. … Perhaps the literature of
   the court was even more remarkable. Starting on the model of
   Alexandria, with a great library, Attalus was far more
   fortunate than the Ptolemies in making his university the home
   of Stoic philosophy."

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 20._

      _en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Gaul_

   From the assumption of the crown by Attalus I. the kingdom of
   Pergamus existed about a century. Its last king bequeathed it
   to the Romans in 133 B. C. and it became a Roman province. Its
   splendid library of 200,000 volumes was given to Cleopatra a
   century later by Antony, and was added to that of Alexandria.
   The name of the city is perpetuated in the word parchment,
   which is derived therefrom. Its ruins are found at a place
   called Bergamah.

      See, also,
      SELEUCIDÆ; B. C. 224-187;
      ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;
      and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

PERGAMUM: A. D. 1336.
   Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

      See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.

   ----------PERGAMUM: End--------

PERGAMUS, Citadel of.

      See TROJA.

PERICLES, Age of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454; and 445-429.

PERINTHUS: B. C. 340.
   Siege by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

PERIOECI, The.

      See SPARTA: THE CITY.

PERIPLUS.

   The term periplus, in the usage of Greek and Roman writers,
   signified a voyage round the coast of some sea. Example: "The
   Periplus of the Erythrean Sea."

PERIZZITES, The.

   "The name 'Perizzites,' where mentioned in the Bible, is not
   meant to designate any particular race, but country people, in
   contradistinction to those dwelling in towns."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

PERMANENT SETTLEMENT OF BENGAL LAND REVENUE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

PERONNE, The Treaty of.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

{2509}

PERPETUAL EDICT, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

PERPIGNAN: A. D. 1642.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

PERRHÆBIANS, The.

   "There had dwelt in the valley of the Peneus [Thessaly] from
   the earliest times a Pelasgic nation, which offered up thanks
   to the gods for the possession of so fruitful a territory at
   the festival of Peloria. … Larissa was the ancient capital of
   this nation. But at a very early time the primitive
   inhabitants were either expelled or reduced to subjection by
   more northern tribes. Those who had retired into the mountains
   became the Perrhæbian nation, and always retained a certain
   degree of independence. In the Homeric catalogue the
   Perrhæbians are mentioned as dwelling on the hill Cyphus,
   under Olympus."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   Dr. Curtius is of the opinion that the Dorians were a
   subdivision of the Perrhæbians.

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

PERRY, Commodore Matthew C.: Expedition to Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

PERRY, Commodore Oliver H.: Victory on Lake Erie.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

PERRYVILLE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

PERSARGADÆ.

      See PERSIA., ANCIENT PEOPLE, &c.

PERSARMENIA.

   While the Persians possessed Armenia Major, east of the
   Euphrates, and the Romans held Armenia Minor, west of that
   river, the former region was sometimes called Persarmenia.

PERSECUTIONS, Religious.
   Of Albigenses.

      See ALBIGENSES.

   Of Christians under the Roman Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 64-68; 96-138; 192-284; 303-305;
      and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

   Of Hussites in Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434, and after.

   Of Jews.

      See JEWS.

   Of Lollards.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

   Of Protestants in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

   Of Protestants in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547; 1559-1561 to 1598-1599;
      1661-1680; 1681-1698.

   Of Protestants in the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A.D. 1521-1555 to 1594-1609.

   Of Roman Catholics in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587;
      1587-1588; 1678-1679.

   Of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1691-1782.

   Of Christians in Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1549-1686.

   Of the Waldenses.

      See WALDENSES.

      See, also, INQUISITION.

PERSEIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS.—ARGOLIS.

   ----------PERSEPOLIS: Start--------

PERSEPOLIS: Origin.

      See PERSIA, ANCIENT PEOPLE.

PERSEPOLIS: B. C. 330.
   Destruction by Alexander.

   Although Persepolis was surrendered to him on his approach to
   it (B. C. 331), Alexander the Great determined to destroy the
   city. "In this their home the Persian kings had accumulated
   their national edifices, their regal sepulchres, the
   inscriptions commemorative of their religious or legendary
   sentiment, with many trophies and acquisitions arising out of
   their conquests. For the purposes of the Great King's empire,
   Babylon, or Susa, or Ekbatana, were more central and
   convenient residences; but Persepolis was still regarded as
   the heart of Persian nationality. It was the chief magazine,
   though not the only one, of those annual accumulations from
   the imperial revenue, which each king successively increased,
   and which none seems to have ever diminished. … After
   appropriating the regal treasure—to the alleged amount of
   120,000 talents in gold and silver (=£27,600,000 sterling)
   —Alexander set fire to the citadel. … The persons and property
   of the inhabitants were abandoned to the licence of the
   soldiers, who obtained an immense booty, not merely in gold
   and silver, but also in rich clothing, furniture, and
   ostentatious ornaments of every kind. The male inhabitants
   were slain, the females dragged into servitude; except such as
   obtained safety by flight, or burned themselves with their
   property in their own houses."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

   ----------PERSIA: Start--------

PERSIA:
    Ancient people and country.

   "Persia Proper seems to have corresponded nearly to that
   province of the modern Iran which still bears the ancient name
   slightly modified, being called Farsistan or Fars. … Persia
   Proper lay upon the gulf to which it has given name, extending
   from the mouth of the Tab (Oroatis) to the point where the
   gulf joins the Indian Ocean. It was bounded on the west by
   Susiana, on the north by Media Magna, on the east by Mycia,
   and on the south by the sea. Its length seems to have been
   about 450, and its average width about 250 miles. … The
   earliest known capital of the region was Pasargadæ, or
   Persagadæ, as the name is sometimes written, of which the
   ruins still exist near Murgab, in latitude 30° 15', longitude
   53° 17'. Here is the famous tomb of Cyrus. … At the distance
   of thirty miles from Pasargadæ, or of more than forty by the
   ordinary road, grew up the second capital, Persepolis. … The
   Empire, which, commencing from Persia Proper, spread itself,
   toward the close of the sixth century before Christ, over the
   surrounding tracts, [extended from the Caspian Sea and the
   Indian Desert to the Mediterranean and the Propontis]. … The
   earliest appearance of the Persians in history is in the
   inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, which begin to notice them
   about the middle of the ninth century, B. C. At this time
   Shalmanezer II. [the Assyrian king] found them in
   south-western Armenia, where they were in close contact with
   the Medes, of whom, however, they seem to have been wholly
   independent. … It is not until the reign of Sennacherib that
   we once more find them brought into contact with the power
   which aspired to be mistress of Asia. At the time of their
   re-appearance they are no longer in Armenia, but have
   descended the line of Zagros and reached the districts which
   lie north and north-east of Susiana. … It is probable that
   they did not settle into an organized monarchy much before the
   fall of Nineveh. … The history of the Persian 'Empire' dates
   from the conquest of Astyages [the Median king] by Cyrus, and
   therefore commences with the year B. C. 558 [or, according to
   Sayce, B. C. 549 —see below]."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapters 1 and 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Sayce,
      Ancient Empires of the East,
      appendix 5._

      See, also,
      ARIANS; IRAN; and ACHÆMENIDS.

PERSIA:
   The ancient religion.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

{2510}

PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.
   The founding of the empire by Cyrus the Great, King of Elam.
   His conquest of Media, Persia, Lydia, and Babylonia.
   The restoration of the Jews.
   Conquest of Egypt by Kambyses.

   "It was in B. C. 549 that Astyages was overthrown [see MEDIA].
   On his march against Kyros [Cyrus] his own soldiers, drawn
   probably from his Aryan subjects, revolted against him and
   gave him into the hands of his enemy. 'The land of Ekbatana
   and the royal city' were ravaged and plundered by the
   conqueror; the Aryan Medes at once acknowledged the supremacy
   of Kyros, and the empire of Kyaxares was destroyed. Some time,
   however, was still needed to complete the conquest; the older
   Medic population still held out in the more distant regions of
   the empire, and probably received encouragement and promises
   of help from Babylonia. In B. C. 546, however, Kyros marched
   from Arbela, crossed the Tigris, and destroyed the last relics
   of Median independence. … The following year saw the opening
   of the campaign against Babylonia [see BABYLONIA: B. C.
   625-539]. But the Babylonian army, encamped near Sippara,
   formed a barrier which the Persians were unable to overcome;
   and trusting, therefore, to undermine the power of Nabonidos
   by secret intrigues with his subjects, Kyros proceeded against
   Krœsos. A single campaign sufficed to capture Sardes and its
   monarch, and to add Asia Minor to the Persian dominions [see
   LYDIANS, and ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539]. The Persian conqueror
   was now free to attack Babylonia. Here his intrigues were
   already bearing fruit. The Jewish exiles were anxiously
   expecting him to redeem them from captivity, and the tribes on
   the sea coast were ready to welcome a new master. In B. C. 538
   the blow was struck. The Persian army entered Babylonia from
   the south. The army of Nabonidos was defeated at Rata in June;
   on the 14th of that month Sippara opened its gates, and two
   days later Gobryas, the Persian general, marched into Babylon
   itself 'without battle and fighting.' … In October Kyros
   himself entered his new capital in triumph."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      The Ancient Empires of the East:
      Herodotus 1-3. Appendix 5._

   "The history of the downfall of the great Babylonian Empire,
   and of the causes, humanly speaking, which brought about a
   restoration of the Jews, has recently been revealed to us by
   the progress of Assyrian discovery. We now possess the account
   given by Cyrus himself, of the overthrow of Nabonidos, the
   Babylonian king, and of the conqueror's permission to the
   captives in Babylonia to return to their homes. The account is
   contained in two documents, written, like most other Assyrian
   and Babylonian records, upon clay, and lately brought from
   Babylonia to England by Mr. Rassam. One of these documents is
   a tablet which chronicles the events of each year in the reign
   of Nabonidos, the last Babylonian monarch, and continues the
   history into the first year of Cyrus, as king of Babylon. The
   other is a cylinder, on which Cyrus glorifies himself and his
   son Kambyses, and professes his adherence to the worship of
   Bel-Merodach, the patron-god of Babylon. The
   tablet-inscription is, unfortunately, somewhat mutilated,
   especially at the beginning and the end, and little can be
   made out of the annals of the first five years of Nabonidos,
   except that he was occupied with disturbances in Syria. In the
   sixth year the record becomes clear and continuous. … The
   inscriptions … present us with an account of the overthrow of
   the Babylonian Empire, which is in many important respects
   very different from that handed down to us by classical
   writers. We possess in them the contemporaneous account of one
   who was the chief actor in the events he records, and have
   ceased to be dependent upon Greek and Latin writers, who could
   not read a single cuneiform character, and were separated by a
   long lapse of time from the age of Nabonidos and Cyrus.
   Perhaps the first fact which will strike the mind of the
   reader with astonishment is that Cyrus does not call himself
   and his ancestors kings of Persia, but of Elam. The word used
   is Anzan or Ansan, which an old Babylonian geographical tablet
   explains as the native name of the country which the Assyrians
   and Hebrews called Elam. This statement is verified by early
   inscriptions found at Susa and other places in the
   neighbourhood, and belonging to the ancient monarchs of Elam,
   who contended on equal terms with Babylonia and Assyria until
   they were at last conquered by the Assyrian king
   Assur-bani-pal, and their country made an Assyrian province.
   In these inscriptions they take the imperial title of 'king of
   Anzan.' The annalistic tablet lets us see when Cyrus first
   became king of Persia. In the sixth year of Nabonidos (B. C.
   549) Cyrus is still king of Elam; in the ninth year he has
   become king of Persia. Between these two years, therefore, he
   must have gained possession of Persia either by conquest or in
   some peaceable way. When he overthrew Astyages his rule did
   not as yet extend so far. At the same time Cyrus must have
   been of Persian descent, since he traces his ancestry back to
   Teispes, whom Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in his great
   inscription on the sacred rock of Behistun, claims as his own
   forefather. … The fact that Susa or Shushan was the original
   capital of Cyrus explains why it remained the leading city of
   the Persian Empire; and we can also now understand why it is
   that in Isaiah xxi. 2, the prophet bids Elam and Media, and
   not Persia and Media, 'go up' against Babylon. That Cyrus was
   an Elamite, however, is not the only startling revelation
   which the newly-discovered inscriptions have made to us. We
   learn from them that he was a polytheist who worshipped
   Bel-Merodach and Nebo, and paid public homage to the deities
   of Babylon. We have learned a similar fact in regard to his
   son Kambyses from the Egyptian monuments. These have shown us
   that the account of the murder of the sacred bull Apis by
   Kambyses given by Herodotus is a fiction; a tablet
   accompanying the huge granite sarcophagus of the very bull he
   was supposed to have wounded has been found with the image of
   Kambyses sculptured upon it kneeling before the Egyptian god.
   The belief that Cyrus was a monotheist grew out of the belief
   that he was a Persian, and, like other Persians, a follower of
   the Zoroastrian faith; there is nothing in Scripture to
   warrant it. Cyrus was God's shepherd only because he was His
   chosen instrument in bringing about the restoration of Israel.
   … The first work of Cyrus was to ingratiate himself with the
   conquered population by affecting a show of zeal and piety
   towards their gods, and with the nations which had been kept
   in captivity in Babylonia, by sending them and their deities
   back to their homes.
{2511}
   Among these nations were the Jews, who had perhaps assisted
   the king of Elam in his attack upon Nabonidos. Experience had
   taught Cyrus the danger of allowing a disaffected people to
   live in the country of their conquerors. He therefore reversed
   the old policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, which
   consisted in transporting the larger portion of a conquered
   population to another country, and sought instead to win their
   gratitude and affection by allowing them to return to their
   native lands. He saw, moreover, that the Jews, if restored
   from exile, would not only protect the southwestern corner of
   his empire from the Egyptians, but would form a base for his
   intended invasion of Egypt itself. … The number of exiles who
   took advantage of the edict of Cyrus, and accompanied
   Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, amounted to 42,360. It is probable,
   however, that this means only the heads of families; if so,
   the whole body of those who left Babylon, including women and
   children, would have been about 200,000. … The conquest of
   Babylonia by Cyrus took place in the year 538 B. C. He was
   already master of Persia, Media, and Lydia; and the overthrow
   of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar extended his dominions from
   the mountains of the Hindu Kush on the east to the shores of
   the Mediterranean on the west. Egypt alone of the older
   empires of the Oriental world remained independent, but its
   doom could not be long delayed. The career of Cyrus had indeed
   been marvellous. He had begun as the king only of Anzan or
   Elam, whose power seemed but 'small' and contemptible to his
   neighbour the great Babylonian monarch. But his victory over
   the Median king Astyages and the destruction of the Median
   Empire made him at once one of the most formidable princes in
   Western Asia. Henceforth the seat of his power was moved from
   Susa or Shushan to Ekbatana, called Achmetha in Scripture,
   Hagmatan in Persian, the capital of Media. … The conquest of
   Media was quickly followed by that of Persia, which appears to
   have been under the government of a collateral branch of the
   family of Cyrus. Henceforward the king of Elam becomes also
   the king of Persia. The empire of Lydia, which extended over
   the greater part of Asia Minor, fell before the army of Cyrus
   about B. C. 540. … The latter years of the life of Cyrus were
   spent in extending and consolidating his power among the wild
   tribes and unknown regions of the Far East. When he died, all
   was ready for the threatened invasion of Egypt. This was
   carried out by his son and successor Kambyses, who had been
   made 'king of Babylon' three years before his father's death,
   Cyrus reserving to himself the imperial title of 'King of the
   world.' … As soon as Kambyses became sole sovereign, Babylon
   necessarily took rank with Shushan and Ekbatana. It was the
   third centre of the great empire, and in later days the
   Persian monarchs were accustomed to make it their official
   residence during the winter season. … Kambyses was so
   fascinated by his new province that he refused to leave it.
   The greater part of his reign was spent in Egypt, where he so
   thoroughly established his power and influence that it was the
   only part of the empire which did not rise in revolt at his
   death. … Soon after his father's death he stained his hands
   with the blood of his brother Bardes, called Smerdis by
   Herodotus, to whom Cyrus had assigned the eastern part of his
   empire. Bardes was put to death secretly at Susa, it is said.
   … A Magian, Gaumata or Gomates by name, who resembled Bardes
   in appearance, came forward to personate the murdered prince,
   and Persia, Media, and other provinces at once broke into
   rebellion against their long-absent king. When the news of
   this revolt reached Kambyses he appointed Aryandes' satrap of
   Egypt, and, if we may believe the Greek accounts, set out to
   oppose the usurper. He had not proceeded far, however, before
   he fell by his own hand. The false Bardes was now master of
   the empire. Darius, in his inscription on the rock of
   Behistun, tells us that 'he put to death many people who had
   known Bardes, to prevent its being known that he was not
   Bardes, son of Cyrus.' At the same time he remitted the taxes
   paid by the provinces, and proclaimed freedom for three years
   from military service. But he had not reigned more than seven
   months before a conspiracy was formed against him. Darius, son
   of Hystaspes, attacked him at the head of the conspirators, in
   the land of Nisæa in Media, and there slew him, on the 10th
   day of April, B. C. 521. Darius, like Kambyses, belonged to
   the royal Persian race of Akhæmenes."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther,
      chapters 1 and 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. Sayce,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 7._

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      The Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
      chapter 10-12._

PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
   The reign of Darius I.
   His Indian and Scythian expeditions.
   The Ionian revolt and its suppression.
   Aid given to the insurgents by Athens.

   "Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, is rightly regarded as the
   second founder of the Persian empire. His reign is dated from
   the first day of the year answering to B. C. 521; and it
   lasted 36 years, to December 23, B. C. 486. … Throughout the
   Behistun Inscription Darius represents himself as the
   hereditary champion of the Achaemenids, against Gomates and
   all other rebels. … It is 'by the grace of Ormazd' that he
   does everything. … This restoration of the Zoroastrian
   worship, and the putting down of several rebellions, are the
   matters recorded in the great trilingual inscription at
   Behistun, which Sir Henry Rawlinson dates, from internal
   evidence, in the sixth year of Darius (B. C. 516). … The
   empire of which Darius became king embraced, as he says, the
   following provinces: 'Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria,
   Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea (the islands),
   Saparda, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangia,
   Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandaria, the Sacae,
   Sattagydia, Arachotia, and Mecia: in all twenty-three
   provinces.' … All the central provinces constituting the
   original empire, from the mountains of Armenia to the head of
   the Persian Gulf, as well as several of those of the Iranian
   table-land, had to be reconquered. … Having thus restored the
   empire, Darius pursued new military expeditions and conquests
   in the true spirit of its founder. To the energy of youth was
   added the fear that quiet might breed new revolts; and by such
   motives, if we may believe Herodotus, he was urged by Queen
   Atossa —at the instigation of the Greek physician,
   Democedes—to the conquest of Greece; while he himself was
   minded to construct a bridge which should join Asia to Europe,
   and so to carry war into Scythia.
{2512}
   It seems to have been according to an Oriental idea of right,
   and not as a mere pretext, that he claimed to punish the
   Scythians for their invasion of Media in the time of Cyaxares.
   So he contented himself, for the present, with sending spies
   to Greece under the guidance of Democedes, and with the
   reduction of Samos. The Scythian expedition, however, appears
   to have been preceded by the extension of the empire eastward
   from the mountains of Afghanistan—the limit reached by Cyrus—
   over the valley of the Indus. … The part of India thus added
   to the empire, including the Punjab and apparently Scinde,
   yielded a tribute exceeding that of any other province. … The
   Scythian Expedition of Darius occupies the greater part of the
   Fourth Book of Herodotus. … The great result of the
   expedition, in which the king and his army narrowly escaped
   destruction, was the gaining of a permanent footing in Europe
   by the conquest of Thrace and the submission of Macedonia. …
   It was probably in B. C. 508 that Darius, having collected a
   fleet of 600 ships from the Greeks of Asia, and an army of
   700,000 or 800,000 men from an the nations of his empire,
   crossed the Hellespont by a bridge of boats, and marched to
   the Danube, conquering on his way the Thracians within, and
   the Getæ beyond, the Great Balkan. The Danube was crossed by a
   bridge formed of the vessels of the Ionians, just above the
   apex of its Delta. The confusion in the geography of Herodotus
   makes it as difficult as it is unprofitable to trace the
   direction and extent of the march, which Herodotus carries
   beyond the Tanais (Don), and probably as far north as 50° lat.
   The Scythians retreated before Darius, avoiding a pitched
   battle, and using every stratagem to detain the Persians in
   the country till they should perish from famine." Darius
   retreated in time to save his army. "Leaving his sick behind,
   with the campfires lighted and the asses tethered, to make the
   enemy believe that he was still in their front, he retreated
   in the night. The pursuing Scythians missed his line of march,
   and came first to the place where the Ionian ships bridged the
   Danube. Failing to persuade the Greek generals to break by the
   same act both the bridge and the yoke of Darius, they marched
   back to encounter the Persian army. But their own previous
   destruction of the wells led them into a different route; and
   Darius got safe, but with difficulty, to the Danube. … The
   Hellespont was crossed by means of the fleet with which the
   strait had been guarded by Megabazus, or, more probably,
   Megabyzus; and the second opportunity was barred against a
   rising of the Greek colonies. … He left Megabazus in Europe
   with 80,000 troops to complete the reduction of all Thrace."
   Megabazus not only executed this commission, but reduced the
   kingdom of Macedonia to vassalage before returning to his
   master, in B. C. 506.

      _P. Smith,
      Ancient History of the East,
      book 3, chapter 27._

   "Darius returned to Susa, leaving the western provinces in
   profound peace under the government of his brother
   Artaphernes. A trifling incident lighted the flame of
   rebellion. One of those political conflicts, which we have
   seen occurring throughout Greece, broke out in Naxos, an
   island of the Cyclades (B. C. 502). The exiles of the
   oligarchical party applied for aid to Aristagoras, the tyrant
   of Miletus, who persuaded Artaphernes to send an expedition
   against Naxos. The Persian commander, incensed by the
   interference of Aristagoras on a point of discipline, warned
   the Naxians, and so caused the failure of the expedition and
   ruined the credit of Aristagoras, who saw no course open to
   him but revolt. … With the consent of the Milesian citizens,
   Aristagoras seized the tyrants who were on board of the fleet
   that had returned from Naxos; he laid down his own power;
   popular governments were proclaimed in all the cities and
   islands; and Ionia revolted from Darius (B. C. 501).
   Aristagoras went to Sparta … and tried to tempt the king,
   Cleomenes, by displaying the greatness of the Persian empire;
   but his admission that Susa was three months' journey from the
   sea ruined his cause. He had better success at Athens; for the
   Athenians knew that Artaphernes had been made their enemy by
   Hippias. They voted twenty ships in aid of the Ionians, and
   the squadron was increased by five ships of the Eretrians.
   Having united with the Ionian fleet, they disembarked at
   Ephesus, marched up the country, and surprised Sardis, which
   was accidentally burnt during the pillage. Their forces were
   utterly inadequate to hold the city; and their return was not
   effected without a severe defeat by the pursuing army. The
   Athenians reembarked and sailed home, while the Ionians
   dispersed to their cities to make those preparations which
   should have preceded the attack. Their powerful fleet gained
   for them the adhesion of the Hellespontine cities as far as
   Byzantium, of Caria, Caunus, and Cyprus; but this island was
   recovered by the Persians within a year. The Ionians
   protracted the insurrection for six years. Their cause was
   early abandoned by Aristagoras, who fled to the coast of
   Thrace and there perished. … The fate of the revolt turned at
   last on the siege of Miletus. The city was protected by the
   Ionian fleet, for which the Phoenician navy of Artaphernes was
   no match. But there was fatal disunion and want of discipline
   on board, and the defection of the Samians gave the Persians
   an easy victory off Lade (B. C. 495). Miletus suffered the
   worst horrors of a storm, and the other cities and islands
   were treated with scarcely less severity. This third
   subjugation of Ionia inflicted the most lasting blow on the
   prosperity of the colonies (B. C. 493). Throughout his
   narrative of these events, Herodotus declares his opinion of
   the impolicy of the interference of the Athenians. The ships
   they voted, he says, were the beginning of evils both to the
   Greeks and the barbarians. When the news of the burning of
   Sardis was brought to Darius, he called for his bow, and shot
   an arrow towards the sky, with a prayer to Auramazda for help
   to revenge himself on the Athenians. Then he bade one of his
   servants repeat to him thrice, as he sat down to dinner, the
   words, 'Master, remember the Athenians.' Upon the suppression
   of the Ionian revolt, he appointed his son-in-law Mardonius to
   succeed Artaphernes, enjoining him to bring these insolent
   Athenians and Eretrians to Susa."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 33-35 (volume 4)._

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

PERSIA: B. C. 509.
   Alliance solicited, but subjection refused by the Athenians.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

{2513}

PERSIA: B. C. 492-491.
   First expedition against Greece and its failure.
   Wrathful preparations of the king for subjugation of the Greeks.

      See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

PERSIA: B. C. 490-479.
   Wars with the Greeks.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490, to B. C. 479.

PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.
   From Xerxes I. to Artaxerxes II.
   The disastrous invasion of Greece.
   Loss of Egypt.
   Recovery of Asia Minor.
   Decay of the empire.

   "Xerxes I, who succeeded Darius, B. C. 486, commenced his
   reign by the reduction of Egypt, B. C. 485, which he entrusted
   to his brother, Achæmenes. He then provoked and chastised a
   rebellion of the Babylonians, enriching himself with the
   plunder of their temples. After this he turned his attention
   to the invasion of Greece [where he experienced the disastrous
   defeats of Salamis, Platæa and Mycale.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480, to B. C. 479.

   … It was now the turn of the Greeks to retaliate on their
   prostrate foe. First under the lead of Sparta and then under
   that of Athens they freed the islands of the Ægean from the
   Persian yoke, expelled the Persian garrisons from Europe, and
   even ravaged the Asiatic coast and made descents on it at
   their pleasure. For twelve years no Persian fleet ventured to
   dispute with them the sovereignty of the seas; and when at
   last, in B. C. 466, a naval force was collected to protect
   Cilicia and Cyprus, it was defeated and destroyed by Cimon at
   the Eurymedon.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

   Soon after this Xerxes' reign came to an end. This weak
   prince, … on his return to Asia, found consolation for his
   military failure in the delights of the seraglio, and ceased
   to trouble himself much about affairs of State. … The bloody
   and licentious deeds which stain the whole of the later
   Persian history commence with Xerxes, who suffered the natural
   penalty of his follies and his crimes when, after reigning
   twenty years, he was murdered by the captain of his guard,
   Artabanus, and Aspamitres, his chamberlain. … Artabanus placed
   on the throne the youngest son of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I [B. C.
   465]. … The eldest son, Darius, accused by Artabanus of his
   father's assassination, was executed; the second, Hystaspes,
   who was satrap of Bactria, claimed the crown; and, attempting
   to enforce his claim, was defeated and slain in battle. About
   the same time the crimes of Artabanus were discovered, and he
   was put to death. Artaxerxes then reigned quietly for nearly
   forty years. He was a mild prince, possessed of several good
   qualities; but the weakness of his character caused a rapid
   declension of the empire under his sway. The revolt of Egypt
   [B. C. 460-455] was indeed suppressed after a while, through
   the vigorous measures of the satrap of Syria, Megabyzus; and
   the Athenians, who had fomented it, were punished by the
   complete destruction of their fleet, and the loss of almost
   all their men.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   … Bent on recovering her prestige, Athens, in B. C. 449,
   despatched a fleet to the Levant, under Cimon, which sailed to
   Cyprus and laid siege to Citium. There Cimon died; but the
   fleet, which had been under his orders, attacked and
   completely defeated a large Persian armament off Salamis,
   besides detaching a squadron to assist Amyrtæus, who still
   held out in the Delta. Persia, dreading the loss of Cyprus and
   Egypt, consented to an inglorious peace [the much disputed
   'Peace of Cimon,' or 'Peace of Callias'

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   … Scarcely less damaging to Persia was the revolt of
   Megabyzus, which followed. This powerful noble … excited a
   rebellion in Syria [B. C. 447], and so alarmed Artaxerxes that
   he was allowed to dictate the terms on which he would consent
   to be reconciled to his sovereign. An example was thus set of
   successful rebellion on the part of a satrap, which could not
   but have disastrous consequences. … The disorders of the court
   continued, and indeed increased, under Artaxerxes I, who
   allowed his mother Amestris, and his sister Amytis, who was
   married to Megabyzus, to indulge freely the cruelty and
   licentiousness of their dispositions. Artaxerxes died B. C.
   425, and left his crown to his only legitimate son, Xerxes II.
   Revolutions in the government now succeeded each other with
   great rapidity. Xerxes. II, after reigning forty-five days,
   was assassinated by his half-brother, Secydianus, or
   Sogdianus, an illegitimate son of Artaxerxes, who seized the
   throne, but was murdered in his turn, after a reign of six
   months and a half, by another brother, Ochus. Ochus, on
   ascending the throne, took the name of Darius, and is known in
   history as Darius Nothus. He was married to Parysatis, his
   aunt, a daughter of Xerxes I., and reigned nineteen years, B.
   C. 424-405, under her tutelage. His reign … was on the whole
   disastrous. Revolt succeeded to revolt; and, though most of
   the insurrections were quelled, it was at the cost of what
   remained of Persian honour and self-respect. Corruption was
   used instead of force against the rebellious armies. … The
   revolts of satraps were followed by national outbreaks, which,
   though sometimes quelled, were in other instances successful.
   In B. C. 408, the Medes, who had patiently acquiesced in
   Persian rule for more than a century, made an effort to shake
   off the yoke, but were defeated and reduced to subjection.
   Three years later, B. C. 405, Egypt once more rebelled, under
   Nepherites, and succeeded in establishing its independence.
   The Persians were expelled from Africa, and a native prince
   seated himself on the throne of the Pharaohs. It was some
   compensation for this loss, and perhaps for others towards the
   north and north-east of the empire, that in Asia Minor the
   authority of the Great King was once more established over the
   Greek cities. It was the Peloponnesian War, rather than the
   Peace of Callias, which had prevented any collision between
   the great powers of Europe and Asia for 37 years. Both Athens
   and Sparta had their hands full; and though it might have been
   expected that Persia would have at once taken advantage of the
   quarrel to reclaim at least her lost continental dominion, yet
   she seems to have refrained, through moderation or fear, until
   the Athenian disasters in Sicily encouraged her to make an
   effort. She then invited the Spartans to Asia, and by the
   treaties which she concluded with them, and the aid which she
   gave them, reacquired without a struggle all the Greek cities
   of the coast [B. C. 412]. … Darius Nothus died B. C. 405, and
   was succeeded by his eldest son, Arsaces, who on his accession
   took the name of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes II, called by the
   Greeks Mnemon, on account of the excellence of his memory, had
   from the very first a rival in his brother Cyrus."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 2, sections 24-39._

{2514}

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Five Great Monarchies,
      volume 3: Persia, chapter 7._

PERSIA: B. C. 413.
   Tribute again demanded from the Greek cities in Asia Minor.
   Hostility to Athens.
   Subsidies to her enemies.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
   The expedition of Cyrus the Younger,
   and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand.

   Cyrus the Younger, so called to distinguish him from the great
   founder of the Persian empire, was the second son of Darius
   Nothus, king of Persia, and expected to succeed his father on
   the throne through the influence of his mother, Parysatis.
   During his father's life he was appointed satrap of Lydia,
   Phrygia and Cappadocia, with supreme military command in all
   Asia Minor. On the death of Darius, B. C. 404, Cyrus found
   himself thwarted in his hopes of the succession, and laid
   plans at once for overthrowing the elder brother, Artaxerxes,
   who had heen placed on the throne. He had acquired an
   extensive acquaintance with the Greeks and had had much to do
   with them, in his administration of Asia Minor, during the
   Peloponnesian War. That acquaintance had produced in his mind
   a great opinion of their invincible qualities in war, and had
   shown him the practicability of forming, with the means which
   he commanded, a compact army of Greek mercenaries which no
   Persian force could withstand. He executed his plan of
   gathering such a column of Greek soldiers, without awakening
   his brother's suspicions, and set out upon his expedition from
   Sardes to Susa, in March B. C. 401. As he advanced, finding
   himself unopposed, the troops of Artaxerxes retreating before
   him, he and his Asiatic followers grew rash in their
   confidence, and careless of discipline and order. Hence it
   happened that when the threatened Persian monarch did confront
   them, with a great army, at Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, in
   Babylonia, they were taken by surprise and routed, and the
   pretender, Cyrus, was slain on the field. The Greeks—who
   numbered about 13,000, but whose ranks were soon thinned and
   who are famous in history as the Ten Thousand,—stood unshaken,
   and felt still equal to the conquest of the Persian capital,
   if any object in advancing upon it had remained to them. But
   the death of Cyrus left them in a strange situation,—deserted
   by every Asiatic ally, without supplies, without knowledge of
   the country, in the midst of a hostile population. Their own
   commander, moreover, had been slain, and no one held authority
   over them. But they possessed what no other people of their
   time could claim—the capacity for self-control. They chose
   from their ranks a general, the Athenian Xenophon, and endowed
   him with all necessary powers. Then they set their faces
   homewards, in a long retreat from the lower Euphrates to the
   Euxine, from the Euxine to the Bosporus, and so into Greece.
   "Although this eight months' military expedition possesses no
   immediate significance for political history, yet it is of
   high importance, not only for our knowledge of the East, but
   also for that of the Greek character; and the accurate
   description which we owe to Xenophon is therefore one of the
   most valuable documents of antiquity. … This army is a typical
   chart, in many colours, of the Greek population—a picture, on
   a small scale, of the whole people, with all its virtues and
   faults, its qualities of strength and its qualities of
   weakness, a wandering political community which, according to
   home usage, holds its assemblies and passes its resolutions,
   and at the same time a wild and not easily manageable hand of
   free–lances. … And how very remarkable it is, that in this
   mixed multitude of Greeks it is an Athenian who by his
   qualities towers above all the rest, and becomes the real
   preserver of the entire army! The Athenian Xenophon had only
   accompanied the expedition as a volunteer, having been
   introduced by Proxenus to Cyrus, and thereupon moved by his
   sense of honour to abide with the man whose great talents he
   admired. … The Athenian alone possessed that superiority of
   culture which was necessary for giving order and self-control
   to the band of warriors, barbarized by their selfish life, and
   for enabling him to serve them in the greatest variety of
   situations as spokesman, as general, and as negotiator; and to
   him it was essentially due that, in spite of their unspeakable
   trials, through hostile tribes and desolate snow-ranges, 8,000
   Greeks after all, by wanderings many and devious, in the end
   reached the coast. They fancied themselves safe when, at the
   beginning of March, they had reached the sea at Trapezus. But
   their greatest difficulties were only to begin here, where
   they first again came into contact with Greeks." Sparta, then
   supreme in Greece, feared to offend the Great King by showing
   any friendliness to this fugitive remnant of the unfortunate
   expedition of Cyrus. The gates of her cities were coldly shut
   against them, and they were driven to enter the service of a
   Thracian prince, in order to obtain subsistence. But another
   year found Sparta involved in war with Persia, and the
   surviving Cyreans, as they came to be called, were then
   summoned to Asia Minor for a new campaign against the enemy
   they hated most.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 69-71._

      _Xenophon,
      Anabasis._

PERSIA: B. C. 399-387.
    War with Sparta.
    Alliance with Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Argos.
    The Peace of Antalcidas.
    Recovery of Ionian cities.

       See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PERSIA: B. C. 366.
   Intervention in Greece solicited by Thebes.
   The Great King's rescript.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

PERSIA: B. C. 337-336.
   Preparations for invasion by Philip of Macedonia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PERSIA: B. C. 334-330.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA &c.: B. C. 334-330.

PERSIA: B. C. 323-150.
   Under the Successors of Alexander.
   In the empire of the Seleucidæ.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316;
      and SELEUCIDÆ.

PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
   Embraced in the Parthian empire.
   Recovery of national independence.
   Rise of the Sassanian monarchy.

   "About B. C. 163, an energetic [Parthian] prince, Mithridates
   I., commenced a series of conquests towards the West, which
   terminated (about B. C. 150) in the transference from the
   Syro-Macedonian to the Parthian rule of Media Magna, Susiana,
   Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria Proper. It would seem that the
   Persians offered no resistance to the progress of the new
   conqueror. … The treatment of the Persians by their Parthian
   lords seems, on the whole, to have been marked by moderation.
   … It was a principle of the Parthian governmental system to
   allow the subject peoples, to a large extent, to govern
   themselves.
{2515}
   These people generally, and notably the Persians, were ruled
   by native kings, who succeeded to the throne by hereditary
   right, had the full power of life and death, and ruled very
   much as they pleased, so long as they paid regularly the
   tribute imposed upon them by the 'King of Kings,' and sent him
   a respectable contingent when he was about to engage in a
   military expedition."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 1._

   "The formidable power of the Parthians … was in its turn
   subverted by Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, the founder of a new
   dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides [see SASSANIAN
   DYNASTY], governed Persia till the invasion of the Arabs. This
   great revolution, whose fatal influence was soon experienced
   by the Romans, happened in the fourth year of Alexander
   Severus [A. D. 226]. … Artaxerxes had served with great
   reputation in the armies of Artaban, the last king of the
   Parthians; and it appears that he was driven into exile and
   rebellion by royal ingratitude, the customary reward for
   superior merit. His birth was obscure, and the obscurity
   equally gave room to the aspersions of his enemies and the
   flattery of his adherents. If we credit the scandal of the
   former, Artaxerxes sprang from the illegitimate commerce of a
   tanner's wife with a common soldier. The latter represents him
   as descended from a branch of the ancient kings of Persia. …
   As the lineal heir of the monarchy, he asserted his right to
   the throne, and challenged the noble task of delivering the
   Persians from the oppression under which they groaned above
   five centuries, since the death of Darius. The Parthians were
   defeated in three great battles. In the last of these their
   king Artaban was slain, and the spirit of the nation was for
   ever broken. The authority of Artaxerxes was solemnly
   acknowledged in a great assembly held at Balkh in Khorasun."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
   Wars with the Romans.

   The revolution in Asia which subverted the Parthian empire and
   brought into existence a new Persian monarchy—the monarchy of
   the Sassanides—occurred A. D. 226. The founder of the new
   throne, Artaxerxes, no sooner felt firm in his seat than he
   sent an imposing embassy to bear to the Roman emperor—then
   Alexander Severus —his haughty demand that all Asia should be
   yielded to him and that Roman arms and Roman authority should
   be withdrawn to the western shores of the Ægean and the
   Propontis. This was the beginning of a series of wars,
   extending through four centuries and ending only with the
   Mahometan conquests which swept Roman and Persian power,
   alike, out of the contested field. The first campaigns of the
   Romans against Artaxerxes were of doubtful result. In the
   reign of Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, the war was renewed, with
   unprecedented humiliation and disaster to the Roman arms.
   Valerian, the emperor, was surrounded and taken prisoner,
   after a bloody battle fought near Edessa (A. D.
   260),—remaining until his death a captive in the hands of his
   insolent conqueror and subjected to every indignity.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

   Syria was overrun by the Persian armies, and its splendid
   capital, Antioch, surprised, pillaged, and savagely wrecked,
   while the inhabitants were mostly slain or reduced to slavery.
   Cilicia and Cappadocia were next devastated in like manner.
   Cæsarea, the Cappadocian capital, being taken after an
   obstinate siege, suffered pillage and unmerciful massacre. The
   victorious career of Sapor, which Rome failed to arrest, was
   cheeked by the rising power of Palmyra (see PALMYRA). Fifteen
   years later, Aurelian, who had destroyed Palmyra, was marching
   to attack Persia when he fell by the hands of domestic enemies
   and traitors. It was not until A. D. 283, in the reign of
   Carus, that Rome and Persia crossed swords again. Carus
   ravaged Mesopotamia, captured Seleucia and Ctesiphon and
   passed beyond the Tigris, when he met with a mysterious death
   and his victorious army retreated. A dozen years passed before
   the quarrel was taken up again, by Diocletian.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305).

   That vigorous monarch sent one of his Cæsars—Galerius—into
   the field, while he stationed himself at Antioch to direct the
   war. In his first campaign (A. D. 297), Galerius was defeated,
   on the old fatal field of Carrhæ. In his second campaign (A.
   D. 297-298) he won a decisive victory and forced on the
   Persian king, Narses, a humiliating treaty, which renounced
   Mesopotamia, ceded five provinces beyond the Tigris, made the
   Araxes, or Aboras, the boundary between the two empires, and
   gave other advantages to the Romans. There was peace, then,
   for forty years, until another Sapor, grandson of Narses, had
   mounted the Persian throne. Constantine the Great was dead and
   his divided empire seemed less formidable to the neighboring
   power. "During the long period of the reign of Constantius [A.
   D. 337-361] the provinces of the East were afflicted by the
   calamities of the Persian war. … The armies of Rome and Persia
   encountered each other in nine bloody fields, in two of which
   Constantius himself commanded in person. The event of the day
   was most commonly adverse to the Romans." In the great battle
   of Singara, fought A. D. 348, the Romans were victors at
   first, but allowed themselves to be surprised at night, while
   plundering the enemy's camp, and were routed with great
   slaughter. Three sieges of Nisibis, in Mesopotamia—the bulwark
   of Roman power in the East—were among the memorable incidents
   of these wars. In 338, in 346, and again in 350, it repulsed
   the Persian king with shame and loss. Less fortunate was the
   city of Amida [modern Diarbekir], in Armenia, besieged by
   Sapor, in 350. It was taken, at the last, by storm, and the
   inhabitants put to the sword. On the accession of Julian, the
   Persian war was welcomed by the ambitious young emperor as an
   opportunity for emulating the glory of Alexander, after
   rivalling that of Cæsar in Gaul. In the early spring of 363,
   he led forth a great army from Antioch, and traversed the
   sandy plains of Mesopotamia to the Persian capital of
   Ctesiphon, reducing and destroying the strong cities of
   Perisabor and Maogamalcha on his march. Finding Ctesiphon too
   strong in its fortifications to encourage a siege, he crossed
   the Tigris, burned his fleet and advanced boldly into the
   hostile country beyond. It was a fatal expedition. Led astray
   by perfidious guides, harassed by a swarm of enemies, and
   scantily supplied with provisions, the Romans were soon forced
   to an almost desperate retreat. If Julian had lived, he might
   possibly have sustained the courage of his men and rescued
   them from their situation; but he fell, mortally wounded, in
   repelling one of the incessant attacks of the Persian cavalry.
{2516}
   An officer named Jovian was then hastily proclaimed emperor,
   and by his agency an ignominious treaty was arranged with the
   Persian king. It gave up all the conquests of Galerius,
   together with Nisibis, Singara and other Roman strongholds in
   Mesopotamia; on which hard terms the Roman army was permitted
   to recross the Tigris and find a refuge in regions of its own.
   The peace thus shamefully purchased endured for more than
   half-a-century. Religious fanaticism kindled war afresh, A. D.
   422, between Persia and the eastern empire; but the events are
   little known. It seems to have resulted, practically, in the
   division of Armenia which gave Lesser Armenia to the Romans as
   a province and made the Greater Armenia, soon afterwards, a
   Persian satrapy, called Persarmenia. The truce which ensued
   was respected for eighty years. In the year 502, while
   Anastasius reigned at Constantinople and Kobad was king of
   Persia, there was a recurrence of war, which ended, however,
   in 505, without any territorial changes. The unhappy city of
   Amida was again captured in this war, after a siege of three
   months, and 80,000 of its inhabitants perished under the
   Persian swords. Preparatory to future conflicts, Anastasius
   now founded and Justinian afterwards strengthened the
   powerfully fortified city of Dara, near Nisibis. The value of
   the new outpost was put to the proof in 526, when hostilities
   again broke out. The last great Roman general, Belisarius, was
   in command at Dam during the first years of this war, and
   finally held the general command. In 529 he fought a great
   battle in front of Dara and won a decisive victory. The next
   year he suffered a defeat at Sura and in 532 the two powers
   arranged a treaty of peace which they vauntingly called "The
   Endless Peace"; but Justinian (who was now emperor) paid
   11,000 pounds of gold for it. "The Endless Peace" was so
   quickly ended that the year 540 found the Persian king
   Chosroes, or Nushirvan, at the head of an army in Syria
   ravaging the country and despoiling the cities. Antioch, just
   restored by Justinian, after an earthquake which, in 526, had
   nearly levelled it with the ground, was stormed, pillaged,
   half burned, and its streets drenched with blood. The seat of
   war was soon transferred to the Caucasian region of Colchis,
   or Lazica (modern Mingrelia), and became what is known in
   history as the Lazic War [see LAZICA], which was protracted
   until 561, when Justinian consented to a treaty which pledged
   the empire to pay 30,000 pieces of gold annually to the
   Persian king, while the latter surrendered his claim to
   Colchis. But war broke out afresh in 572 and continued till
   591, when the armies of the Romans restored to the Persian
   throne another Chosroes, grandson of the first, who had fled
   to them from a rebellion which deposed and destroyed his
   unworthy father. Twelve years later this Chosroes became the
   most formidable enemy to the empire that it had encountered in
   the East. In successive campaigns he stripped from it Syria
   and Palestine, Egypt, Cyrenaica, and the greater part of Asia
   Minor, even to the shores of the Bosphorus. Taking the city of
   Chalcedon in 616, after a lengthy siege, he established a camp
   and army at that post, within sight of Constantinople, and
   held it for ten years, insulting and threatening the imperial
   capital. But he found a worthy antagonist in Heraclius, who
   became emperor of the Roman East in 610, and who proved
   himself to be one of the greatest of soldiers. It was twelve
   years after the beginning of his reign before Heraclius could
   gather in hand, from the shrunken and exhausted empire, such
   resources as would enable him to turn aggressively upon the
   Persian enemy. Then, in three campaigns, between 622 and 627,
   he completely reversed the situation. After a decisive battle,
   fought December 1, A. D. 627, on the very site of ancient
   Nineveh, the royal city of Dastagerd was taken and spoiled,
   and the king, stripped of all his conquests and his glory, was
   a fugitive.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

   A conspiracy and an assassination soon ended his career and
   his son made peace. It was a lasting peace, as between Romans
   and Persians; for eight years afterwards the Persians were in
   their death struggle with the warriors of Mahomet.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18, 24-25, 40, 42, 46._

PERSIA: A. D. 632-651.
   Mahometan Conquest.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

PERSIA: A. D. 901-998.
   The Samanide and Bouide dynasties.

      See SAMANIDES;
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

PERSIA: A. D. 999-1038.
   Under the Gaznevides.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

PERSIA: A. D. 1050-1193.
   Under the Seljuk Turks.

      See TURKS (SELJUK): 1004-1063, and after.

PERSIA: A. D. 1150-1250.
   The period of the Atabegs.

      See ATABEGS.

PERSIA: A. D. 1193.
   Conquest by the Khuarezmians.

      See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

PERSIA: A. D. 1220-1226.
   Conquest by Jingiz Khan.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.

PERSIA: A. D. 1258-1393.
   The Mongol empire of the Ilkhans.

   Khulagu, or Houlagou, grandson of Jingis Khan, who
   extinguished the caliphate at Bagdad, A. D. 1258, and
   completed the Mongol conquest of Persia and Mesopotamia (see
   BAGDAD: A. D. 1258), "received the investiture of his
   conquests and of the country south of the Oxus. He founded an
   empire there, known as that of the Ilkhans. Like the Khans of
   the Golden Horde, the successors of Batu, they for a long time
   acknowledged the suzerainty of the Khakan of the Mongols in
   the East."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 211._

   Khulagu "fixed his residence at Maragha, in Aderbijan, a
   beautiful town, situated on a fine plain watered by a small
   but pure stream, which, rising in the high mountains of
   Sahund, flows past the walls of the city, and empties itself
   in the neighbouring lake of Oormia. … At this delightful spot
   Hulakoo [or Khulagu] appears to have employed his last years
   in a manner worthy of a great monarch. Philosophers and
   astronomers were assembled from every part of his dominions,
   who laboured in works of science under the direction of his
   favourite, Nasser-u-deen." The title of the Ilkhans, given to
   Khulagu and his successors, signified simply the lords or
   chiefs (the Khans). Their empire was extinguished in 1393 by
   the conquests of Timour.

      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      chapter 10 (volume 1)._

{2517}

   "It was under Sultan Ghazan, who reigned from 1294 to 1303,
   that Mahometanism again became the established religion of
   Persia. In the second year of his reign, Ghazan Khan publicly
   declared his conversion to the faith of the Koran. … After
   Sultan Ghazan the power of the Mongolian dynasty in Persia
   rapidly declined. The empire soon began to break in pieces. …
   The royal house became extinct, while another branch of the
   descendants of Hulaku established themselves at Bagdad. At
   last Persia became a mere scene of anarchy and confusion,
   utterly incapable of offering any serious resistance to the
   greatest of Mussulman conquerors, the invincible and merciless
   Timour."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquest of the Saracens,
      lecture 6._

PERSIA: A. D. 1386-1393.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
   The founding of the Sefavean dynasty.
   Triumph of the Sheahs.
   Subjugation by the Afghans.
   Deliverance by Nadir Shah.
   The Khajar dynasty.

   "At an early period in the rise of Islamism, the followers of
   Mohammed became divided on the question of the succession to
   the caliphate, or leadership, vacated by the death of
   Mohammed. Some, who were in majority, believed that it lay
   with the descendants of the caliph, Moawiyeh, while others as
   firmly clung to the opinion that the succession lay with the
   sons of Alee and Fatimeh, the daughter of the prophet, Hassan
   and Houssein, and their descendants. In a desperate conflict
   on the banks of the Euphrates, nearly al the male descendants
   of the prophet were slain [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST &c.: A. D.
   680], and almost the entire Mohammedan peoples, from India to
   Spain, thenceforward became Sunnees—that is, they embraced
   belief in the succession of the line of the house of Moawiyeh,
   called the Ommiades. But there was an exception to this
   uniformity of belief. The Persians, as has been seen, were a
   people deeply given to religious beliefs and mystical
   speculations to the point of fanaticism. Without any apparent
   reason many of them became Sheahs [or Shiahs], or believers in
   the claims of the house of Alee and Fatimeh [see ISLAM]. …
   Naturally for centuries the Sheahs suffered much persecution
   from the Sunnees, as the rulers of Persia, until the 15th
   century, were generally Sunnees. But this only stimulated the
   burning zeal of the Sheahs, and in the end resulted in
   bringing about the independence of Persia under a dynasty of
   her own race. In the 14th century there resided at Ardebil a
   priest named the Sheikh Saifus, who was held in the highest
   repute for his holy life. He was a lineal descendant of Musa,
   the seventh Holy Imam. His son, Sadr-ud-Deen, not only enjoyed
   a similar fame for piety, but used it to such good account as
   to become chieftain of the province where he lived. Junaid,
   the grandson of Sadr-ud–Deen, had three sons, of whom the
   youngest, named Ismail, was born about the year 1480. When
   only eighteen years of age, the young Ismail entered the
   province of Ghilan, on the shores of the Caspian, and by the
   sheer force of genius raised a small army, with which he
   captured Baku. His success brought recruits to his standard,
   and at the head of 16,000 men he defeated the chieftain of
   Alamut, the general sent against him, and, marching on
   Tabreez, seized it without a blow. In 1499 Ismail, the founder
   of the Sefavean dynasty, was proclaimed Shah of Persia. Since
   that period, with the exception of the brief invasion of
   Mahmood the Afghan, Persia has been an independent and at
   times a very powerful nation. The establishment of the
   Sefavean dynasty also brought about the existence of a Sheah
   government, and gave great strength to that sect of the
   Mohammedans, between whom and other Islamites there was always
   great bitterness and much bloodshed. Ismail speedily carried
   his sway as far as the Tigris in the southwest and to Kharism
   and Candahar in the north and east. He lost one great battle
   with the Turks under Selim II. at Tabreez [or Chaldiran—see
   TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520], but with honor, as the Persians were
   outnumbered; but it is said he was so cast down by that event
   he never was seen to smile again. He died in 1524, leaving the
   record of a glorious reign. His three immediate successors,
   Tahmasp, Ismail II., and Mohammed Khudabenda, did little to
   sustain the fame and power of their country, and the new
   empire must soon have yielded to the attacks of its enemies at
   home and abroad, if a prince of extraordinary ability had not
   succeeded to the throne when the new dynasty seemed on the
   verge of ruin. Shah Abbass, called the Great, was crowned in
   the year 1586, and died in 1628, at the age of seventy, after
   a reign of forty-two years [see TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640]. This
   monarch was one of the greatest sovereigns who ever sat on the
   throne of Persia. … It was the misfortune of Persia that the
   Sefavean line rapidly degenerated after the death of Shah
   Abbass. … Taking advantage of the low state of the Sefavean
   dynasty, Mahmood, an Afghan chieftain, invaded Persia in 1722
   with an army of 50,000 men. Such was the condition of the
   empire that he had little difficulty in capturing Ispahan,
   although it had a population of 600,000. He slaughtered every
   male member of the royal family except Houssein the weak
   sovereign, his son Tahmasp, and two grandchildren; all the
   artists of Ispahan and scores of thousands besides were slain.
   That magnificent capital has never recovered from the blow.
   Mahmood died in 1725, and was succeeded by his cousin Ashraf.
   But the brief rule of the Afghans terminated in 1727. Nadir
   Kuli, a Persian soldier of fortune, or in other words a
   brigand of extraordinary ability, joined Tahmasp II., who had
   escaped and collected a small force in the north of Persia.
   Nadir marched on Ispahan and defeated the Afghans in several
   battles; Ashraf was slain and Tahmasp II. was crowned. But
   Nadir dethroned Tahmasp II. in 1732, being a man of vast
   ambition as well as desire to increase the renown of Persia;
   and he caused that unfortunate sovereign to be made way with
   some years later. Soon after Nadir Kuli proclaimed himself
   king of Persia with the title of Nadir Kuli Khan. Nadir was a
   man of ability equal to his ambition. He not only beat the
   Turks with comparative ease, but he organized an expedition
   that conquered Afghanistan and proceeded eastward until Delhi
   fell into his hands, with immense slaughter. …

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

   He was assassinated in 1747. Nadir Kuli Khan was a man of
   great genius, but he died too soon to establish an enduring
   dynasty, and after his death civil wars rapidly succeeded each
   other until the rise of the present or Khajar dynasty, which
   succeeded the reign of the good Kerim Khan the Zend, who
   reigned twenty years at Shiraz. Aga Mohammed Khan, the founder
   of the Khajar dynasty, succeeded in 1794 in crushing the last
   pretender to the throne, after a terrible civil war, and once
   more reunited the provinces of Persia under one sceptre. …
{2518}
   Aga Mohammed Khan was succeeded, after his assassination, by
   his nephew Feth Alee Shah, a monarch of good disposition and
   some ability. It was his misfortune to be drawn into two wars
   with Russia, who stripped Persia of her Circassian provinces,
   notwithstanding the stout resistance made by the Persian
   armies. Feth Alec Shah was succeeded by his grandson Mohammed
   Shah, a sovereign of moderate talents. No events of unusual
   interest mark his reign, excepting the siege of Herat which
   was captured in the present reign from the Afghans. He died in
   1848, and was succeeded by his son Nasr-ed-Deen Shah, the
   present (1887), sovereign of Persia."

      _S. G. W. Benjamin,
      The Story of Persia,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Markham,
      General Sketch of the History of Persia,
      chapters 10-20._

      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      chapters 12-20 (volume 1-2)._

      _R. G. Watson,
      History of Persia, 1800-1858._

PERSIA: A. D. 1894.
   The reigning Shah.

   Nasr-ed-Deen is still, in 1894, the reigning sovereign. He is
   blessed with a family of four sons and fifteen daughters.

   ----------PERSIA: End--------

PERSIAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

PERSIANS, Education of the ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
      PRESIDENT BUCHANAN'S SURRENDER.

   ----------PERTH: Start--------

PERTH: A. D. 1559.
   The Reformation Riot.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

PERTH: A. D. 1715.
   Headquarters of the Jacobite Rebellion.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

   ----------PERTH: End--------

PERTH, The Five Articles of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

PERTINAX, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

   ----------PERU: Start--------

PERU:
   Origin of the name.

   "There was a chief in the territory to the south of the Gulf
   of San Miguel, on the Pacific coast" named Biru, and this
   country was visited by Gaspar de Morales and Francisco Pizarro
   in 1515. For the next ten years Biru was the most southern
   land known to the Spaniards; and the consequence was that the
   unknown regions farther south, including the rumored empire
   abounding in gold, came to be designated as Biru, or Peru. It
   was thus that the land of the Yncas got the name of Peru from
   the Spaniards, some years before it was actually discovered."

      _C. H. Markham,
      Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6, chapter 2._

PERU:
   The aboriginal inhabitants and their civilization.
   The extraordinary paternal despotism of the Incas.

   "The bulk of the population [of Peru] is composed of the
   aboriginal Indians, the natives who had been there from time
   immemorial when America was discovered. The central tribe of
   these Indians was that of the Yncas, inhabiting the region in
   the Sierra which has already been described as the Cuzco
   section. Such a country was well adapted for the cradle of an
   imperial tribe. … The Ynca race was originally divided into
   six tribes, whose lands are indicated by the rivers which
   formed their limits. Of these tribes the Yncas themselves had
   their original seat between the rivers Apurimac and
   Paucartampu, with the lovely valley of the Vilcamayu bisecting
   it. The Canas dwelt in the upper part of that valley up to the
   Vilcañota Pass, and on the mountains on either side. The
   Quichuas were in the valleys round the head waters of the
   Apurimac and Abancay. The Chancas extended from the
   neighbourhood of Ayacucho (Guamanga) to the Apurimac. The
   Huancas occupied the valley of the Xauxa up to the saddle of
   the Cerro Pasco, and the Rucanas were in the mountainous
   region between the central and western cordilleras. These six
   tribes eventually formed the conquering Ynca race. Their
   language was introduced into every conquered province, and was
   carefully taught to the people, so that the Spaniards
   correctly called it the 'Lengua General' of Peru. This
   language was called Quichua, after the tribe inhabiting the
   upper part of the valleys of the Pachachaca and Apurimac.
   Their territory consisted chiefly of uplands covered with long
   grass, and the name has been derived from the abundance of
   straw in this region. 'Quehuani' is to twist; 'quehuasca' is
   the participle; and 'ychu' is straw. Together,
   'Quehuasca-Ychu,' or twisted straw, abbreviated into Quichua.
   The name was given to the language by Friar San Tomas in his
   grammar published in 1500, who perhaps first collected words
   among the Quichuas and so gave it their name, which was
   adopted by all subsequent grammarians. But the proper name
   would have been the Ynca language. The aboriginal people in
   the basin of Lake Titicaca were called Collas, and they spoke
   a language which is closely allied to the Quichua. … The
   Collas were conquered by the Yncas in very remote times, and
   their language, now incorrectly called Aymara, received many
   Quichua additions; for it originally contained few words to
   express abstract ideas, and none for many things which are
   indispensable in the first beginnings of civilized life. One
   branch of the Collas (now called Aymaras) was a savage tribe
   inhabiting the shores and islands of Lake Titicaca, called
   Urus. … The Ynca and Colla (Aymara) tribes eventually combined
   to form the great armies which spread the rule of Ynca
   sovereigns over a much larger extent of country. … In the
   happy days of the Yncas they cultivated many of the arts, and
   had some practical knowledge of astronomy. They had
   domesticated all the animals in their country capable of
   domestication, understood mining and the working of metals,
   excelled as masons, weavers, dyers, and potters, and were good
   farmers. They brought the science of administration to a high
   pitch of perfection, and composed imaginative songs and dramas
   of considerable merit. … The coast of Peru was inhabited by a
   people entirely different from the Indians of the Sierra.
   There are some slight indications of the aborigines having
   been a diminutive race of fishermen who were driven out by the
   more civilized people, called Yuncas. … The Yncas conquered
   the coast valleys about a century before the discovery of
   America, and the Spaniards completed the destruction of the
   Yunca people."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      chapter 3._

{2519}

   "In the minuter mechanical arts, both [the Aztecs of Mexico
   and the Incas of Peru] showed considerable skill; but in the
   construction of important public works, of roads, aqueducts,
   canals, and in agriculture in all its details, the Peruvians
   were much superior. Strange that they should have fallen so
   far below their rivals in their efforts after a higher
   intellectual culture, in astronomical science, more
   especially, and in the art of communicating thought by visible
   symbols. … We shall look in vain in the history of the East
   for a parallel to the absolute control exercised by the Incas
   over their subjects. … It was a theocracy more potent in its
   operation than that of the Jews; for, though the sanction of
   the law might be as great among the latter, the law was
   expounded by a human lawgiver, the servant and representative
   of Divinity. But the Inca was both the lawgiver and the law.
   He was not merely the representative of Divinity, or, like the
   Pope, its vicegerent, but he was Divinity itself. The
   violation of his ordinance was sacrilege. Never was there a
   scheme of government enforced by such terrible sanctions, or
   which bore so oppressively on the subjects of it. For it
   reached not only to the visible acts, but to the private
   conduct, the words, the very thoughts of its vassals. … Under
   this extraordinary polity, a people advanced in many of the
   social refinements, well skilled in manufactures and
   agriculture, were unacquainted … with money. They had nothing
   that deserved to be called property. They could follow no
   craft, could engage in no labor, no amusement, but such as was
   specially provided by law. They could not change their
   residence or their dress without a license from the
   government. They could not even exercise the freedom which is
   conceded to the most abject in other countries, that of
   selecting their own wives. The imperative spirit of despotism
   would not allow them to be happy or miserable in any way but
   that established by law. The power of free agency—the
   inestimable and inborn right of every human being—was
   annihilated in Peru."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, edition.),
      volume 6, pages 215-226._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World called America,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      AMERICAN ABORIGINES, ANDESIANS.

PERU:
   The empire of the Incas.

   "The Inca empire had attained its greatest extension and power
   precisely at the period of the discovery by Columbus, under
   the reign of Huayna Capac, who, rather than Huascar or
   Atahualpa, should be called the last of the Incas. His father,
   the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, had pushed his conquests on the
   south, beyond the great desert of Atacama, to the river Maule
   in Chili; while, at the same time, Huayna Capac himself had
   reduced the powerful and refined kingdom of the Sciris of
   Quito [see ECUADOR], on the north. From their great dominating
   central plateau, the Incas had pressed down to the Pacific, on
   the one hand, and to the dense forests of the Amazonian
   valleys on the other. Throughout this wide region and over all
   its nations, principalities, and tribes, Huayna Capac at the
   beginning of the 16th century ruled supreme. His empire
   extended from four degrees above the equator to the 34th
   southern parallel of latitude, a distance of not far from
   3,000 miles; while from east to west it spread, with varying
   width, from the Pacific to the valleys of Paucartambo and
   Chuquisaca, an average distance of not far from 400 miles,
   covering an area, therefore, of more than one million square
   miles, equal to about one-third of the total area of the
   United States, or to the whole of the United States to the
   eastward of the Mississippi river. … In the islands of Lake
   Titicaca, if tradition be our guide, were developed the germs
   of Inca civilization. Thence, it is said, went the founders of
   the Inca dynasty, past the high divide between the waters
   flowing into the lake and those falling into the Amazon, and
   skirting the valley of the river Vilcanota for more than 200
   miles, they established their seat in the bolson [valley] of
   Cuzco. … It is not only central in position, salubrious and
   productive, but the barriers which separate it from the
   neighboring valleys are relatively low, with passes which may
   be traversed with comparative ease; while they are, at the
   same time, readily defensible. The rule of the first Inca
   seems not to have extended beyond this valley, and the passes
   leading into it are strongly fortified, showing the direction
   whence hostilities were anticipated in the early days of the
   empire, before the chiefs of Cuzco began their career of
   conquest and aggregation, reducing the people of the bolson of
   Anta in the north, and that of Urcos in the south. … The
   survey of the monuments of Peru brings the conviction that the
   ancient population was not nearly so numerous as the accounts
   of the chroniclers would lead us to suppose. From what I have
   said, it will be clear that but a small portion of the country
   is inhabitable, or capable of supporting a considerable number
   of people. The rich and productive valleys and bolsones are
   hardly more than specks on the map; and although there is
   every evidence that their capacities of production were taxed
   to the very utmost, still their capacities were limited. The
   ancient inhabitants built their dwellings among rough rocks,
   on arid slopes of hills, and walled up their dead in eaves and
   clefts, or buried them among irreclaimable sands, in order to
   utilize the scanty cultivable soil for agriculture. They
   excavated great areas in the deserts until they reached
   moisture enough to support vegetation, and then brought guano
   from the islands to fertilize these sunken gardens. They
   terraced up every hill and mountain–side, and gathered the
   soil from the crevices of the rocks to fill the narrow
   platforms, until not a foot of surface, on which could grow a
   single stalk of maize or a single handful of quinoa, was left
   unimproved. China, perhaps Japan and some portions of India,
   may afford a parallel to the extreme utilization of the soil
   which was effected in Peru at the time of the Inca Empire. No
   doubt the Indian population lived, as it still lives, on the
   scantiest fare, on the very minimum of food; but it had not
   then, as now, the ox, the hog, the goat, and the sheep, nor
   yet many of the grains and fruits which contribute most to the
   support of dense populations. … The present population of the
   three states which were wholly or in part included in the Inca
   Empire—namely, Equador, Peru and Bolivia—does not exceed five
   millions. I think it would be safe to estimate the population
   under the Inca rule at about double that number, or perhaps
   somewhere between ten and twelve millions; notwithstanding Las
   Casas, the good, but not very accurate, Bishop of Chiapa tells
   us that, 'in the Province of Peru alone the Spaniards killed
   above forty millions of people.'"

      _E. G. Squier,
      Peru,
      chapter 1._

PERU:A. D. 1527-1528.
   Discovery by the Spaniards.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

{2520}

PERU: A. D. 1528-1531.
   The commission and the preparations of Pizarro.

   "In the spring of 1528, Pizarro and one of his comrades,
   taking with them some natives of Peru and some products of
   that country, set out [from Panama] to tell their tale at the
   court of Castile. Pizarro … found the Emperor Charles V. at
   Toledo, and met with a gracious reception. … His tales of the
   wealth which he had witnessed were the more readily believed
   in consequence of the experiences of another Spaniard whom he
   now met at court, the famous conqueror of Mexico. Yet affairs
   in Spain progressed with proverbial slowness, and it was not
   until the expiry of a year from the date of his arrival in the
   country that the capitulation was signed defining the powers
   of Pizarro. By this agreement he was granted the right of
   discovery and conquest in Peru, or New Castile, with the
   titles of Captain-general of the province and Adelantado, or
   lieutenant-governor. He was likewise to enjoy a considerable
   salary, and to have the right to erect certain fortresses
   under his government, and, in short, to exercise the
   prerogatives of a viceroy. Almagro was merely appointed
   commander of the fortress of Tumbez, with the rank of Hidalgo;
   whilst Father Luque became bishop of the same place. …
   Pizarro, on his part, was bound to raise within six months a
   force of 250 men; whilst the government on theirs engaged to
   furnish some assistance in the purchase of artillery and
   stores." Thus commissioned, Pizarro left Seville in January,
   1530, hastening back to Panama, accompanied or followed by
   four half-brothers, who were destined to stormy careers in
   Peru. Naturally, his comrade and partner Almagro was ill
   pleased with the provision made for him, and the partnership
   came near to wreck; but some sort of reconciliation was
   brought about, and the two adventurers joined hands again in
   preparations for a second visit to Peru, with intentions
   boding evil to the unhappy natives of that too bountiful land.
   It was early in January 1531 that Pizarro sailed southward
   from the Isthmus for the third and last time.

      _R. G. Watson,
      Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 1, chapters 6-7._

PERU:A. D. 1531-1533.
   Pizarro's conquest.
   Treacherous murder of Atahualpa.

   "Pizarro sailed from Panama on the 28th of December, 1531,
   with three small vessels carrying one hundred and eighty-three
   men and thirty-seven horses. In thirteen days he arrived at
   the bay of San Mateo, where he landed the horses and soldiers
   to march along the shore, sending back the ships to get more
   men and horses at Panama and Nicaragua. They returned with
   twenty-six horses and thirty more men. With this force Pizarro
   continued his march along the sea-coast, which was well
   peopled; and on arriving at the bay of Guayaquil, he crossed
   over in the ships to the island of Puna. Here a devastating
   war was waged with the unfortunate natives, and from Puna the
   conqueror proceeded again in his ships to the Peruvian town of
   Tumbez. The country was in a state of confusion, owing to a
   long and desolating war of succession between Huascar and
   Atahualpa, the two sons of the great Ynca Huayna Capac, and
   was thus an easy prey to the invaders. Huascar had been
   defeated and made prisoner by the generals of his brother, and
   Atahualpa was on his way from Quito to Cusco, the capital of
   the empire, to enjoy the fruits of his victory. He was
   reported to be at Caxamarca, on the eastern side of the
   mountain; and Pizarro, with his small force, set out from
   Tumbez on the 18th of May, 1532. … The first part of Pizarro's
   march was southward from Tumbez, in the rainless coast region.
   After crossing a vast desert he came to Tungarara, in the
   fertile valleys of the Chira, where he founded the city of San
   Miguel, the site of which was afterwards removed to the valley
   of Piura. The accountant Antonio Navarro and the royal
   treasurer Riquelme were left in command at San Miguel, and
   Pizarro resumed his march in search of the Ynca Atahualpa on
   the 24th of September, 1532. He detached the gallant cavalier,
   Hernando de Soto, into the sierra of Huancabamba, to
   reconnoitre, and pacify the country. De Soto rejoined the main
   body after an absence of about ten days. The brother of
   Atahualpa, named Titu Atauchi, arrived as an envoy, with
   presents, and a message to the effect that the Ynca desired
   friendship with the strangers. Crossing the vast desert of
   Sechura, Pizarro reached the fertile valley of Motupe, and
   marched thence to the foot of the cordilleras in the valley of
   the Jequetepeque. Here he rested for a day or two, to arrange
   the order for the ascent. He took with him forty horses and
   sixty foot, instructing Hernando de Soto to follow him with
   the main body and the baggage. News arrived that the Ynca
   Atahualpa had reached the neighborhood of Caxamarca about
   three days before, and that he desired peace. Pizarro pressed
   forward, crossed the cordillera, and on Friday, the 15th of
   November, 1532, he entered Caxamarca with his whole force.
   Here he found excellent accommodation in the large masonry
   buildings, and was well satisfied with the strategic position.
   Atahualpa was established in a large camp outside, where
   Hernando de Soto had an interview with him. Atahualpa
   announced his intention of visiting the Christian commander,
   and Pizarro arranged and perpetrated a black act of treachery.
   He kept all his men under arms. The Ynca, suspecting nothing,
   came into the great square of Cusco in grand regal procession.
   He was suddenly attacked and made prisoner, and his people
   were massacred. The Ynca offered a ransom, which he described
   as gold enough to fill a room twenty-two feet long and
   seventeen wide, to a height equal to a man's stature and a
   half. He undertook to do this in two months, and sent orders
   for the collection of golden vases and ornaments in all parts
   of the empire. Soon the treasure began to arrive, while
   Atahualpa was deceived by false promises, and he beguiled his
   captivity by acquiring Spanish and learning to play at chess
   and cards. Meanwhile Pizarro sent an expedition under his
   brother Hernando, to visit the famous temple of Pachacamac on
   the coast; and three soldiers were also despatched to Cusco,
   the capital of the empire, to hurry forward the treasure. They
   set out in February, 1533, but behaved with so much imprudence
   and insolence at Cusco as to endanger their own lives and the
   success of their mission. Pizarro therefore ordered two
   officers of distinction, Hernando de Soto and Pedro del Barco,
   to follow them and remedy the mischief which they were doing.
   On Easter eve, being the 14th of April, 1533, Almagro arrived
   at Caxamarca with a reinforcement of 150 Spaniards and 84
   horses.
{2521}
   On the 3rd of May it was ordered that the gold already arrived
   should be melted down for distribution; but another large
   instalment came on the 14th of June. An immense quantity
   consisted of slabs, with holes at the corners, which had been
   torn off the walls of temples and palaces; and there were
   vessels and ornaments of all shapes and sizes. After the royal
   fifth had been deducted, the rest was divided among the
   conquerors. The total sum of 4,605,670 ducats would be equal
   to about £3,500,000 of modern money. After the partition of
   the treasure, the murder of the Ynca was seriously proposed as
   a measure of good policy. The crime was committed by order of
   Pizarro, and with the concurrence of Almagro and the friar
   Valverde. It was expected that the sovereign's death would be
   followed by the dispersion of his army, and the submission of
   the people. This judicial murder was committed in the square
   of Caxamarca on the 29th of August, 1533. Hernando de Soto was
   absent at the time, and on his return he expressed the warmest
   indignation. Several other honorable cavaliers protested
   against the execution. Their names are even more worthy of
   being remembered than those of the heroic sixteen who crossed
   the line on the sea-shore at Gallo."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Pizarro and the Conquest and Settlement of Peru and Chili
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 3, chapters 1-8 (volume 1)._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.
   The fighting of the Spanish conquerors over the spoils.

   "The feud between the Pizarros and the Almagros, which forms
   the next great series of events in American history, is one of
   the most memorable quarrels in the world. … This dire contest
   in America destroyed almost every person of any note who came
   within its influence, desolated the country where it
   originated, prevented the growth of colonization, and changed
   for the worse the whole course of legislation for the Spanish
   colonies. Its effects were distinctly visible for a century
   afterward. … There were no signs, however, of the depth and
   fatality of this feud between the Pizarros and Almagros at the
   period immediately succeeding the execution of Atahuallpa.
   That act of injustice having been perpetrated, Pizarro gave
   the royal borla [a peculiar head-dress worn by the reigning
   Incas, described as a tassel of fine crimson wool] to a
   brother of the late Inca [who died two months later, of shame
   and rage at his helpless position], and set out from
   Cassamarca on his way to Cusco. It was now time to extend his
   conquests and to make himself master of the chief city in
   Peru." After a slight resistance, the Spaniards entered "the
   great and holy city of Cusco," the capital of the Incas, on
   the 15th of November, 1533. According to the Spanish
   descriptions it was a remarkable city, constructed with great
   regularity, having paved streets, with a stone conduit of
   water running through the middle of each, with grand squares
   and many splendid palaces and temples. "In Cusco and its
   environs, including the whole valley which could be seen from
   the top of the tower, it is said that there were 'a hundred
   thousand' houses. Among these were shops, and store–houses,
   and places for the reception of tribute. … The great Temple of
   the Sun had, before the Spaniards rifled Cusco, been a
   building of singular gorgeousness. The interior was plated
   with gold; and on each side of the central image of the Sun
   were ranged, the embalmed bodies of the Incas, sitting upon
   their golden thrones raised upon pedestals of gold. All round
   the outside of the building, at the top of the walls, ran a
   coronal of gold about three feet in depth." For three years
   the Spaniards held undisturbed possession of Cusco, reducing
   it to the forms of a Spanish municipality, converting the
   great Temple of the Sun into a Dominican monastery and turning
   many palaces into cathedrals and churches. In the meantime,
   Fernando Pizarro, one of the four brothers of the conqueror,
   returned from his mission to Spain, whither he had been sent
   with full accounts of the conquest and with the king's fifth
   of its spoils. He brought back the title of Marquis for
   Francisco, and a governor's commission, the province placed
   under him to be called New Castile. For Pizarro's associate
   and partner, Almagro, there was also a governorship, but it
   was one which remained to be conquered. He was authorized to
   take possession and govern a province, which should be called
   New Toledo, beginning at the southern boundary of Pizarro's
   government and extending southward 200 leagues. This was the
   beginning of quarrels, which Pizarro's brothers were accused
   of embittering by their insolence. Almagro claimed Cusco, as
   lying within the limits of his province. Pizarro was engaged
   in founding a new capital city near the coast, which he began
   to build in 1535, calling it Los Reyes, but which afterwards
   received the name of Lima; he would not, however, give up
   Cusco. The dispute was adjusted in the end, and Almagro set
   out for the conquest of his province (Chile), much of which
   had formed part of the dominions of the Inca, and for the
   subduing of which he commanded the aid of a large army of
   Peruvians, under two chiefs of the royal family. A few months
   after this, in the spring of 1536, the nominally reigning
   Inca, Manco, escaped from his Spanish masters at Cusco, into
   the mountains, and organized a furious and formidable rising,
   which brought the Spaniards, both at Cusco and Los Reyes, into
   great peril, for many months. Before the revolt had been
   overcome, Almagro returned, unsuccessful and disappointed,
   from his expedition into Chile, and freshly determined to
   assert and enforce his claim to Cusco. It is said that he
   endeavored, at first, to make common cause with the Inca
   Manco; but his overtures were rejected. He then attacked the
   Inca and defeated him; marched rapidly on Cusco, arriving
   before the city April 18, 1537; surprised the garrison while
   negotiations were going on and gained full possession of the
   town. Fernando and Gonzalo, two brothers of the Marquis
   Pizarro, were placed in prison. The latter sent a force of 500
   men, under his lieutenant, Alvarado, against the intruder; but
   Alvarado was encountered on the way and badly beaten. In
   November there was a meeting brought about, between Pizarro
   and Almagro, in the hope of some compromise, but they parted
   from it in sharper enmity than before. Meantime, the younger
   Pizarro had escaped from his captivity at Cusco, and Fernando
   had been released. In the spring of 1538 Fernando led an army
   against the Almagristas, defeated them (April 6, 1538) in a
   desperate battle near Cusco and entered the city in triumph.
{2522}
   Almagro was taken prisoner, subjected to a formal trial,
   condemned and executed. The Pizarros were now completely
   masters of the country and maintained their domination for a
   few years, extending the Spanish conquests into Chile under
   Pedro de Valdivia, and exploring and occupying other regions.
   But in 1541, old hatreds and fresh discontents came to a head
   in a plot which bore fruit in the assassination of the
   governor, the Marquis Pizarro, now past 70 years of age. A
   young half-caste son of old Almagro was installed in the
   governorship by the conspirators, and when, the next year, a
   new royally commissioned governor, Vaca de Castro, arrived
   from Spain, young Almagro was mad enough to resist him. His
   rebellion was overcome speedily and he suffered death. Vaca de
   Castro was superseded in 1544 by a viceroy, Blasco Nuñez Vela,
   sent out by the emperor, Charles V., to enforce the "New
   Laws," lately framed in Spain, under the influence of Las
   Casas, to protect the natives, by a gradual abolition of the
   "repartimientos" and "encomiendas." A rebellion occurred, in
   which Gonzalo Pizarro took the lead, and the Spanish
   government was forced to annul the "New Laws." Pizarro,
   however, still refused to submit, and was only overcome after
   a civil war of two years, which ended in his defeat and death.
   This closed the turbulent career of the Pizarro brothers in
   Peru; but the country did not settle into peace until after
   some years.

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      books 17-18 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Conquest of Peru._

PERU: A. D. 1539-1541.
   Gonzalo Pizarro's expedition to the head waters of the Amazon
   and Orellana's voyage down the great river.

      See AMAZONS RIVER.

PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
   Under the Spanish Viceroys.

   "When the President la Gasca had conquered Gonsalo Pizarro and
   returned to Spain, a peaceful viceroy arrived in Peru, sprung
   from one of the noblest families of the peninsula. This was
   Don Antonio de Mendoza. … Don Antonio died in 1551, after a
   very brief enjoyment of his power; but from this date, during
   the whole period of the rule of kings of the Austrian House,
   the Peruvian Viceroyalty was always filled by members of the
   greatest families of Spain. … At an immense distance from the
   mother country, and ruling at one time nearly the whole of
   South America, including the present republics of Venezuela,
   New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and La Plata, the
   court of the Viceroys was surrounded by regal pomp and
   magnificence. … The archbishop of Lima ranked next to the
   viceroy, and filled his post during his absence from the
   capital. … It was not long after the conquest before the
   inquisition, that fearful engine of the despotic power of
   Spain, was established in Peru. … The Indians were exempted
   from its jurisdiction in theory, but whether, in practice,
   this unfortunate and persecuted people always escaped may be
   considered as doubtful. It was only in the beginning of the
   present century, and shortly before the commencement of the
   war of independence, that this fearful tribunal was
   abolished." Under the senseless government of Philip II. the
   seeds of decay and ruin were planted in every part of the
   Spanish empire. "Though receiving from the silver mines of
   Peru and Mexico the largest revenue of any sovereign in
   Europe, his coffers were always empty, and of $35,000,000
   received from America in 1595, not one rial remained in Spain
   in 1596. … Then followed the reigns of his worthless
   descendants and their profligate ministers; and fast and
   heedlessly did they drive this unfortunate country on the high
   road to ruin and poverty. On the establishment of the Bourbon
   kings of Spain in 1714, a more enlightened policy began to
   show itself in the various measures of government; and the
   trade to the colonies, which had hitherto been confined by the
   strictest monopoly, was slightly opened. At this time, the
   commerce of Peru and Mexico was carried on by what was called
   the 'flota,' consisting of three men-of-war and about fifteen
   merchant-vessels, of from 400 to 1,000 tons. Every kind of
   manufactured article of merchandise was embarked on board this
   fleet, so that all the trading ports of Europe were interested
   in its cargo, and Spain itself sent out little more than wines
   and brandy. The flota sailed from Cadiz, and was not allowed
   to break bulk on any account during the voyage. Arriving at
   Vera Cruz, it took in, for the return voyage, cargoes of
   silver, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, tobacco, and sugar; and
   sailed to the rendezvous at Havannah, where it awaited the
   galleons from Porto Bello, with all the riches of Peru. The
   galleons were vessels of about 500 tons; and an immense fair,
   which collected merchants from all parts of South America, was
   commenced at Porto Bello on their arrival." About the middle
   of the 18th century, "a marked change appears to have come
   over the colonial policy of Spain; and the enlightened
   government of the good Count Florida Blanca, who was prime
   minister for 20 years, introduced a few attempts at
   administrative reform, not before they were needed, into the
   colonial government. The enormous viceroyalty of Peru, long
   found to be too large for a single command, was divided; and
   viceroys were appointed in La Plata and New Granada, while
   another royal audience was established at Quito. The haughty
   grandees of Spain also ceased to come out to Peru; and in
   their places practical men, who had done good service as
   captains-general of Chile, were appointed viceroys, such as
   Don Manuel Amat, in 1761, and Don Agustin Jaurequi, in 1780.
   At last, Don Ambrosio O'Higgins, whose father was a poor Irish
   adventurer, who kept a little retail shop in the square at
   Lima, became viceroy of Peru, and was created Marquis of
   Osorno. … His son, the famous General O'Higgins, was one of
   the liberators of Chile. O'Higgins was followed in the
   viceroyalty by the Marquis of Aviles, and in 1806, Don Jose
   Abascal, an excellent ruler, assumed the reins of government.
   … But the rule of Spain was drawing to a close. The successor
   of Abascal, General Pezuela, was the last viceroy who
   peacefully succeeded. … Many things had tended to prepare the
   minds of the Creole population for revolt. The partial opening
   of foreign trade by Florida Blanca; the knowledge of their own
   enslaved condition, obtained through the medium of their
   increasing intercourse with independent states; and, finally,
   the invasion of the mother country by Napoleon's armies,
   brought popular excitement in South America to such a height
   that it required but a spark to ignite the inflammable
   materials."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Cuzco and Lima,
      chapter 9._

{2523}

   The natives of Spanish descent had received heroic examples of
   revolt from the Inca Peruvians. "In November, 1780, a chief
   named Tupac Amaru rose in rebellion. His original object was
   to obtain guarantees for the due observance of the laws and
   their just administration. But when his moderate demands were
   only answered by cruel taunts and brutal menaces, he saw that
   independence or death were the only alternatives. He was a
   descendant of the ancient sovereigns, and he was proclaimed
   Ynca of Peru. A vast army joined him, as if by magic, and the
   Spanish dominion was shaken to its foundations. The
   insurrection all but succeeded, and a doubtful war was
   maintained for two years and a half. It lasted until July,
   1783, and the cruelties which followed its suppression were
   due to the cowardly terror of panic-stricken tyrants. Tupac
   Amaru did not suffer in vain. … From the cruel death of the
   Ynca date the feelings which resulted in the independence of
   Peru. In 1814, another native chief, named Pumacagua, raised
   the cry of independence at Cuzco, and the sons of those who
   fell with Tupac Amaru flocked in thousands to his standard.
   The patriot army entered Arequipa in triumph, and was joined
   by many Spanish Americans, including the enthusiastic young
   poet, Melgar. Untrained valor succumbed to discipline, and in
   March, 1815, the insurrection was stamped out, but with less
   cruelty than disgraced the Spanish name in 1783."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      page 150._

PERU: A. D. 1579.
   The piracies of Drake.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

PERU: A. D. 1776.
   Separation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The Struggle for Independence.
   Help from Chile and Colombia.
   San Martin and Bolivar, the Liberators.
   The decisive battle of Ayacucho.

   "The great struggle for independence in the Spanish provinces
   of South America had been elsewhere, for the most part,
   crowned with success before Peru became the theatre for
   important action. Here the Spaniards maintained possession of
   their last stronghold upon the continent, and, but for
   assistance from the neighbouring independent provinces, there
   would hardly have appeared a prospect of overthrowing the
   viceroyal government. … In the month of August, 1820,
   independence having been established in Chili [see CHILE: A.
   D. 1810-1818], an army of between 4,000 and 5,000 men was
   assembled at Valparaiso for the purpose of breaking up the
   royalist strongholds of Peru, and of freeing that province
   from the dominion of Spain. The command was held by General
   Jose de San Martin, the emancipator of Chili, to whose
   exertions the expedition was mainly attributable. Such vessels
   of war as could be procured were fitted out and placed under
   command of Lord Cochrane. In the month following, the whole
   force was landed and quartered at Pisco, on the Peruvian
   coast, without opposition from the royalist forces, which
   retreated to Lima, about 100 miles northward. An attempt at
   negotiation having failed, the army of invasion was again in
   motion in the month of October. The naval force anchored off
   Callao, where, on the night of November 5th, Lord Cochrane
   [afterwards Lord Dundonald], commanding in person, succeeded
   in cutting out and capturing the Spanish frigate Esmerelda,
   which lay under the protection of the guns of the fort, and in
   company with a number of smaller armed vessels. This exploit
   is considered as one of the most brilliant achievements of the
   kind on record. The main body of the Chilian troops was
   transported to Huara, about 75 miles north of the capital. …
   As San Martin, after some months' delay at Huara, advanced
   upon Lima, the city was thrown into the utmost confusion. The
   Spanish authorities found it necessary to evacuate the place.
   … The general [San Martin] entered the city on the 12th of
   July, 1821, unaccompanied by his army, and experienced little
   difficulty in satisfying the terrified inhabitants as to his
   good faith and the honesty of his intentions. All went on
   prosperously for the cause, and on the 28th the independence
   of Peru was formally proclaimed, amid the greatest exhibition
   of enthusiasm on the part of the populace. On the 3rd of the
   ensuing month San Martin assumed the title of Protector of
   Peru. No important military movements took place during a
   considerable subsequent period. The fortress at Callao
   remained in possession of the royalists" until the 21st of
   September, when it capitulated. "The independent army remained
   at Lima, for the most part unemployed, during a number of
   months subsequent to these events, and their presence began to
   be felt as a burden by the inhabitants. In April, 1822, a
   severe reverse was felt in the surprise and capture, by
   Canterac [the viceroy], of a very considerable body of the
   revolutionary forces, at Ica. … An interview took place in the
   month of July, of this year [1821], between the Protector and
   the great champion of freedom in South America, Bolivar, then
   in the full pride of success in the northern provinces. The
   result of the meeting was the augmentation of the force at
   Lima by 2,000 Columbian troops. During San Martin's absence
   the tyranny of his minister, Monteagudo, who made the deputy
   protector, the Marquis of Truxillo, a mere tool for the
   execution of his private projects, excited an outbreak, which
   was only quelled by the arrest and removal of the offending
   party. In the succeeding month the first independent congress
   was assembled at the capital, and San Martin, having resigned
   his authority, soon after took his departure for Chili.
   Congress appointed a junta of three persons to discharge the
   duties of the executive. Under this administration the affairs
   of the new republic fell into great disorder." In June, 1823,
   the Spanish viceroy regained possession of Lima, but withdrew
   his troops from it again a month later. Nevertheless, "all
   hopes of success in the enterprise of the revolution now
   seemed to rest upon the arrival of foreign assistance, and
   this was fortunately at hand. Simon Bolivar, the liberator of
   Venezuela, and the most distinguished of the champions of
   freedom in South America, had so far reduced the affairs of
   the recently constituted northern states [see COLOMBIAN
   STATES: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1819-1830] to order and security,
   that he was enabled to turn his attention to the distressed
   condition of the Peruvian patriots. He proceeded at once to
   the scene of action, and entered Lima on the 1st of September,
   1823. … He was received with great rejoicing, and was at once
   invested with supreme power, both civil and military. …
{2524}
   In February, 1824, an insurrection of the garrison at Callao
   resulted in the recapture of this important stronghold by the
   Spaniards, and a few weeks later the capital shared the same
   fate. The revolutionary congress broke up, after declaring its
   own dissolution and the confirmation of Bolivar's authority as
   supreme dictator. This gloomy state of affairs only served to
   call forth the full energies of the great general. He had
   under his command about 10,000 troops, the majority of whom
   were Columbians, stationed near Patavilca. The available
   forces of the royalists were at this period numerically far
   superior to those of the patriots." An action which did not
   become general took place on the plains of Junin, but no
   decisive engagement occurred until the 9th of December, 1824,
   "when the decisive battle of Ayacucho, one of the most
   remarkable in its details and important in its results ever
   fought in South America, gave a deathblow to Spanish power in
   Peru. The attack was commenced by the royalists, under command
   of the viceroy. Their numbers very considerably exceeded those
   of the patriots, being set down at over 9,000, while those of
   the latter fell short of 6,000. … After a single hour's hard
   fighting, the assailants were routed and driven back to the
   heights of Condorcanqui, where, previous to the battle, they
   had taken a position. Their loss was 1,400 in killed and 700
   wounded. The patriots lost in killed and wounded a little less
   than 1,000." Before the day closed, Canterac, the viceroy,
   entered the patriot camp and arranged the terms of a
   capitulation with General Sucre—who had commanded in the
   battle and won its honors, Bolivar not being present. "His
   whole remaining army became prisoners of war, and by the terms
   of the capitulation all the Spanish forces in Peru were also
   bound to surrender." A strong body of Spanish troops held out,
   however, in Upper Peru (afterwards Bolivia) until April, 1825,
   and the royalists who had taken refuge at Callao endured with
   desperate obstinacy a siege which was protracted until
   January, 1826, when most of them had perished of hunger and
   disease. "Bolivar was still clothed with the powers of a
   dictator in Peru. … He was anxious to bring about the adoption
   by the Peruvians of the civil code known as the Bolivian
   constitution, but it proved generally unsatisfactory. While he
   remained in the country, it is said, 'the people overwhelmed
   him with professions of gratitude, and addressed him in
   language unsuitable to any being below the Deity.' A reaction
   took place notwithstanding, and numbers were found ready to
   accuse this truly great man of selfish personal ambition."

      _H. Brownell,
      North and South America: Peru,
      chapters 12-13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Earl of Dundonald,
      Autobiography of a Seaman, Sequel,
      chapter 3._

      _J. Miller,
      Memoirs of General Miller,
      chapters 12-27 (volumes 1-2)._

      _T. Sutcliffe,
      Sixteen Years in Chile and Peru,
      chapters 2-3._

PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
   The founding of the Republic of Bolivia in upper Peru.
   The Bolivian Constitution.

   "Bolivar reassembled the deputies of the Congress of Lower
   Peru, February 10, 1825, and in his message to that body
   resigned the dictatorship, adding, 'I felicitate Peru on her
   being delivered from whatever is most dreadful on earth; from
   war by the victory of Ayacucho, and from despotism by my
   resignation. Proscribe for ever, I entreat you, this
   tremendous authority, which was the sepulchre of Rome.' On the
   same occasion he also said; 'My continuance in this republic
   is an absurd and monstrous phenomenon; it is the approbrium of
   Peru;' with other expressions equally strong; while at the
   same time, at the pressing solicitation of the Congress, he
   consented, notwithstanding his many declarations of
   reluctance, to remain at the head of the republic. Nothing
   could exceed the blind submissiveness of this Congress to
   Bolivar. After investing him with dictatorial authority for
   another year, they voted him a grant of a million of dollars,
   which he twice refused, with a disinterestedness that does him
   the greatest honor. … Liberality of feeling, and entire
   freedom from rapacity of spirit, must be admitted as prominent
   traits in his character. After continuing in session about a
   month, the Congress came to a resolution, that as they had
   granted absolute and unconditional power to Bolivar, in regard
   to all subjects, whether legislative or executive, it was
   unnecessary, and incompatible with his authority, that they
   should continue to exercise their functions; and they
   accordingly separated. Bolivar, being left without check or
   control in the government, after issuing a decree for
   installing a new Congress at Lima the ensuing year, departed
   from Lima in April, for the purpose of visiting the interior
   provinces of Upper and Lower Peru. … There is reason to
   believe, that the flattering reception, with which he was
   greeted on this tour, largely contributed to foster those
   views of ambition respecting Peru, which he betrayed in the
   sequel. Certain it is, at least, that the extravagant
   gratitude of the inhabitants of Peru, gave him occasion to
   assume the task of a legislator, and thus to bring his
   political principles more directly before the world. When the
   victory of Ayacucho left the provinces of Upper Peru free to
   act, the great question presented to their consideration was,
   whether Upper Peru should be united to Lower Peru, or
   reannexed to Buenos Ayres, or constitute an independent state.
   Under the auspices of the Liberator and of Sucre [Bolivar's
   chief of staff], a general assembly was convened at Chuquisaco
   in August, 1825, which declared the will of the people to be,
   that Upper Peru should become a separate republic, and decreed
   that it should be called Bolivia in honor of the Liberator.
   Here their functions should properly have ceased, with the
   fulfilment of the object for which they met. Regardless,
   however, of the limited extent of their powers, they proceeded
   to exercise the authority of a general Congress. They
   conferred the supreme executive powers on Bolivar, so long as
   he should reside within the territory of the republic. Sucre
   was made captain-general of the army, with the title of Grand
   Marshal of Ayacucho, and his name was bestowed upon the
   capital. Medals, statues, and pictures were bountifully and
   profusely decreed, in honor of both Sucre and Bolivar. To the
   latter was voted a million of dollars, as an acknowledgment of
   his preeminent services to the country. With the same
   characteristic magnanimity, which he displayed on a like
   occasion in Lower Peru, he refused to accept the grant for his
   own benefit, but desired that it might be appropriated to
   purchasing the emancipation of about a thousand negroes held
   in servitude in Bolivia. Finally, they solicited Bolivar to
   prepare for the new republic a fundamental code, that should
   perpetuate his political principles in the very frame and
   constitution of the state.
{2525}
   Captivated by the idea of creating a nation, from its very
   foundation, Bolivar consented to undertake the task, if,
   indeed, which has been confidently asserted to be the case, he
   did not himself procure the request to be made. The Liberator
   left Chuquisaca in January, 1826, and returned to Lima, to
   assist at the installation of the Congress summoned to meet
   there in February. He transmitted the form of a constitution
   for Bolivia from Lima, accompanied with an address, bearing
   date May 25, 1826. Of this extraordinary instrument, we feel
   at a loss to decide in what terms to speak. Bolivar has again
   and again declared, that it contains his confession of
   political faith. He gave all the powers of his mind to its
   preparation; he proclaimed it as the well-weighed result of
   his anxious meditations. … This constitution proposes a
   consolidated or central, not a federal, form of government;
   and thus far it is unobjectionable. Every ten citizens are to
   name an elector, whose tenure of office is four years. The
   Legislative power is to be vested in three branches, called
   tribunes, senators, and censors. Tribunes are to be elected
   for four years, senators for eight, and censors for life. So
   complicated is the arrangement proposed for the enactment of
   laws by means of this novel legislature, and so arbitrary and
   unnatural the distribution of powers among the several
   branches, that it would be impracticable for any people,
   having just notions of legislative proceedings, to conduct
   public business in the projected mode; and much more
   impracticable for men, like the South Americans, not at all
   familiar with the business of orderly legislation. But the
   most odious feature in the constitution relates to the nature
   and appointment of the executive authority. It is placed in
   the hands of a president, elected in the first instance by the
   legislative body, holding his office for life, without
   responsibility for the acts of his administration, and having
   the appointment of his successor. The whole patronage of the
   state, every appointment of any importance, from the
   vice-president and secretaries of state down to the officers
   of the revenue, belongs to him; in him is placed the absolute
   control of all the military force of the nation, it being at
   the same time specially provided, that a permanent armed force
   shall be constantly maintained. For the mighty power, the
   irresistible influence, which this plan imparts to the
   executive, the only corresponding security, assured to the
   people, is the inviolability of persons and property. The
   constituent Congress of Bolivia assembled at Chuquisaca, May
   25, 1826, and passively adopted the proposed constitution to
   the letter, as if it had been a charter granted by a sovereign
   prince to his subjects, instead of a plan of government
   submitted to a deliberative assembly for their consideration.
   It took effect accordingly, as the constitution of Bolivia,
   and was sworn to by the people; and General Sucre was elected
   president for life under it, although one of its provisions
   expressly required, that the president should be a native of
   Bolivia."

      _C. Cushing,
      Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution
      (N. A. Rev., January 1830)._

PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
   Retirement of Bolivar.
   Attempted confederation with Bolivia and war with Chile.
   The succession of military presidents.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   War with Spain.

   "As Bolivar … was again prevailed upon [1826] by the Peruvians
   to accept the dictatorship of the northern republic, and was
   at the same time President of the United States of Colombia,
   he was by far the most powerful man on the continent of
   America. For a time it was supposed that the balance of power
   on the southern continent was falling into Colombian hands. …
   But the power of Bolivar, even in his own country, rested on a
   tottering basis. Much more was this the case in the greater
   Vice-royalty. The Peruvian generals, who ruled the opinion of
   the country, were incurably jealous of him and his army, and
   got rid of the latter as soon as they could clear off the
   arrears of pay. They looked upon the Code Bolivar itself as a
   badge of servitude, and were not sorry when the domestic
   disturbances of Colombia summoned the Dictator from among them
   [September, 1826]. The Peruvians, who owed a heavy debt, both
   in money and gratitude, to Colombia, now altogether repudiated
   Bolivar, his code, and his government; and the Bolivians
   followed their example by expelling Sucre and his Colombian
   troops (1828). The revolution which expelled the Colombian
   element was mainly a national and military one: but it was no
   doubt assisted by whatever of liberalism existed in the
   country. Bolivar had now shown himself in Colombia to be the
   apostle of military tyranny, and he was not likely to assume
   another character in Peru. The ascendeney of Colombia in the
   Perus was thus of short duration; but the people of the two
   Perus only exchanged Colombian dictatorship for that of the
   generals of their own nation."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of European Colonies,
      pages 290-291._

   "A Peruvian Congress met in 1827, after General Bolivar had
   returned to Colombia, and elected Don José Lamar, the leader
   of the Peruvian infantry at Ayacucho, as President of the
   Republic; but his defeat in an attempt to wrest Guayaquil from
   Colombia led to his fall, and Agustin Gamarra, an Ynca Indian
   of Cuzco, succeeded him in 1829. Although successful soldiers
   secured the presidential chair, the administration in the
   early days of the Republic contained men of rank, and others
   of integrity and talent. … General Gamarra served his regular
   term of office, and after a discreditable display of sedition
   he was succeeded in 1834 by Don Luis José Orbegoso. Then
   followed an attempt to unite Peru and Bolivia in a
   confederation. The plan was conceived by Don Andres Santa
   Cruz, an Ynca Indian of high descent, who had been President
   of Bolivia since 1829. Orbegoso concurred, and the scheme,
   which had in it some elements of hopefulness and success, was
   carried out, but not without deplorable bloodshed. The
   Peru-Bolivian Confederation was divided into three
   States—North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia. During the
   ascendancy of Santa Cruz, Peru enjoyed a period of peace and
   prosperity. But his power excited the jealousy of Chile, and
   that Republic united with Peruvian malcontents, headed by
   General Gamarra, to destroy it. A Chilian army landed, and
   Santa Cruz was hopelessly defeated in the battle of Yungay,
   which was fought in the Callejon de Huaylas, on the banks of
   the river Santa, on January 20th, 1839. A Congress assembled
   at the little town of Huancayo, in the Sierra, which
   acknowledged Gamarra as President of the Republic, and
   proclaimed a new Constitution on November 16th, 1839. But the
   new state of things was of short duration.
{2526}
   On the pretext of danger from the party of Santa Cruz, war was
   declared upon Bolivia, which resulted in the defeat of the
   Peruvians at the battle of Yngavi, near the banks of Lake
   Titicaca, on November 20th, 1841, and the death of Gamarra. A
   very discreditable period of anarchy ensued, during which
   Gamarra's generals fought with each other for supremacy, which
   was ended by the success of another Indian, and on April 19th,
   1845, General Don Ramon Castilla was proclaimed Constitutional
   President of Peru. … Uneducated and ignorant, his
   administrative merits were small, but his firm and vigorous
   grasp of power secured for Peru long periods of peace. … At
   the end of Castilla's term of office General Echenique
   succeeded him; but in 1854 Castilla placed himself at the head
   of a revolution, and again found himself in power. A new
   Constitution was promulgated in 1856; the tribute of the
   Indians and negro slavery were abolished, and a grant of
   $1,710,000 was voted as compensation to the owners of slaves.
   The mass of the people ceased to be taxed. The revenue was
   entirely derived from sales of guano, customs duties,
   licences, and stamps. … When Castilla retired from office in
   1862, he was succeeded by General San Roman, an old Ynca
   Indian of Puno, whose father had fought under Pumacagua. The
   Republic had then existed for 40 years, during which time it
   had been torn by civil or external wars for nine years and had
   enjoyed 81 years of peace and order. Very great advances had
   been made in prosperity during the years of peace. … General
   San Roman died in 1863, his Vice President, General Pezet, was
   replaced [through a revolution] by Colonel Don Mariano Ignacio
   Prado, and a war with Spain practically ended with the repulse
   of the Spanish fleet from Callao au May 2nd, 1866. The war was
   unjust, the pretext being the alleged ill-treatment of some
   Spanish immigrants at an estate called Talambo, in the coast
   valley of Jequetepeque, which might easily have been arranged
   by arbitration. But the success at Callao aroused the
   enthusiasm of the people and excited strong patriotic
   feelings. Colonel Don Jose Balta was elected President of Peru
   on August 2nd, 1868, the present Constitution having been
   proclaimed on August 31st, 1867. The Senate is composed of
   Deputies of the Provinces, with a property qualification, and
   the House of Representatives of members nominated by electoral
   colleges of provinces and districts, one member for every
   20,000 inhabitants. The district colleges choose deputies to
   the provincial colleges, who elect the representatives to
   Congress. There are 44 senators and 110 representatives.
   Executive power is in the hands of a President and
   Vice–President, elected for four years, with a Cabinet of five
   Ministers. … The government of Colonel Balta entered upon a
   career of wild extravagance, and pushed forward the execution
   of railways and other public works with feverish haste,
   bringing ruin upon the country. … It is sad that a wretched
   military outbreak, in which the President was killed on July
   26th, 1872, should have given it a tragic termination. … On
   August 2nd, 1872, Don Manuel Pardo became Constitutional
   President of Peru. He was the first civilian that had been
   elected. … He came to the helm at a period of great financial
   difficulty, and he undertook a thankless but patriotic task. …
   He was the best President that Peru has ever known. When his
   term of office came to an end, he was peacefully succeeded, on
   August 2nd, 1876, by General Don Mariano Ignacio Prado."

      _C. R. Markham,
      Peru,
      chapter 8._

PERU: A. D. 1879-1884.
   The disastrous war with Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

PERU: A. D. 1886-1894.
   Slow recovery.

   Since the close of the war with Chile, Peru has been slowly
   recovering from its destructive effects. General Caceres
   became President in 1886, and was succeeded in 1890 by General
   Remigio Morales Bermudez, whose term expires in 1894.

   ----------PERU: End--------

PERUGIA, Early history of.

   See PERUSIA.

PERUGIA, Under the domination of the Baglioni.

      See BAGLIONI.

PERUS, The Two.

   Upper Peru and Lower Peru of the older Spanish viceroyalty are
   represented, at the present time, the former by the Republic
   of Bolivia, the latter by the Republic of Peru.

PERUSIA, The war of.

   In the second year of the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and
   Lepidus, Antony being in the east, his wife Fulvia and his
   brother fomented a revolt in Italy against Octavius, which
   forced the latter for a time to quit Rome. But his coolness,
   with the energy and ability of his friend Agrippa, overcame
   the conspiracy. The army of the insurgents was blockaded in
   Perusia (modern Perugia) and sustained a siege of several
   months, so obstinate that the whole affair came to be called
   the war of Perusia. The siege was distinguished by a peculiar
   horror; for the slaves of the city were deliberately starved
   to death, being denied food and also denied escape, lest the
   besiegers should learn of the scarcity within the walls.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 27._

PERUVIAN BARK, Introduction of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

PERUVIAN QUIPU.

      See QUIPU.

PES, The.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

PESHWA OF THE MAHRATTAS, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748; 1798-1805; and 1816-1819.

PESO DE ORO.

      See SPANISH COINS.

PESTALOZZI, and educational reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1798-1827.

PESTH: A. D. 1241.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

PESTH: A. D. 1872.
   Union with Buda.

      See BUDAPESTH.

PESTILENCE.

      See PLAGUE.

PETALISM.

   A vote of banishment which the ancient Syracusans brought into
   practice for a time, in imitation of the Ostracism of the
   Athenians,—(see OSTRACISM). The name of the citizen to be
   banished was written, at Syracuse, on olive-leaves, instead of
   on shells, as at Athens. Hence the name, petalism.

      _Diodorus,
      Historical Library,
      book 11, chapter 26._

PETER,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1217-1219.
   Peter I. (called The Great), Czar of Russia, 1689-1725.

   Peter I., King of Aragon and Navarre, 1094-1104.

   Peter I., King of Hungary, 1088-1046.

   Peter II., Czar of Russia, 1727-1780.

   Peter II., King of Aragon, 1196-1213.

{2527}

   Peter II., King of Sicily, 1337-1342.

   Peter III., Czar of Russia, 1762.

   Peter III., King of Aragon, 1276-1285;
   King of Sicily, 1283-1285.

   Peter IV., King of Aragon, 1336-1387.

   Peter the Hermit's Crusade.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095; and 1096-1099.

   Peter.

      See, also, PEDRO.

PETERBOROUGH, Earl of, and the siege of Barcelona.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

PETERLOO, Massacre of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PETER'S PENCE.

   King Offa, of the old English kingdom of Mercia, procured, by
   a liberal tribute to Rome, a new archbishopric for Lichfield,
   thus dividing the province of Canterbury. "This payment … is
   probably the origin of the Rom-feoh, or Peter's pence, a tax
   of a penny on every hearth, which was collected [in England]
   and sent to Rome from the beginning of the tenth century, and
   was a subject of frequent legislation. But the archiepiscopate
   of Lichfield scarcely survived its founder."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1)._

PETERSBURG, Siege and evacuation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA),
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA); 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

PETERSHAM, Rout of Shays' rebels at.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

PETERVARDEIN, Battle of (1716).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1600-1718.

PETILIA, Battle at.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

PETIT SERJEANTY.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

PETITION OF RIGHT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1625–1628; and 1628.

PETITS MAÍTRES, Les.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

PETRA, Arabia.
   The rock-city of the Nabatheans.

      See NABATHEANS.

PETRA, Illyricum: Cæsar's blockade of Pompeius.

      See ROME B. C. 48.

PETRA, Lazica.

      See LAZICA.

PETROBRUSIANS.
HENRICIANS.

   "The heretic who, for above twenty years, attempted a
   restoration of a simple religion in Southern France, the
   well-known Pierre de Bruys, a native of Gap or Embrun, …
   warred against images and all other visible emblems of
   worship; he questioned the expediency of infant baptism, the
   soundness of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and opposed
   prayers for the dead; but he professed poverty for himself,
   and would have equally enforced it upon all the ministers of
   the altar. He protested against the payment of tithes; and it
   was, most probably, owing to this last, the most heinous of
   all offences, that he was, towards 1130, burnt with slow fire
   by a populace maddened by the priests, at St. Gilles, on the
   Rhone. … His followers rallied … and changed their name of
   Petrobrusians into that of Henricians, when the mantle of
   their first master rested on the shoulders of Henry, supposed
   by Mosheim [Eccles. History, volume 2] to have been an Italian
   Eremite monk."

      _L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga),
      Frà Dolcina and his Times,
      chapter 1._

PETROCORII, The.

   A Gallic tribe established in the ancient Périgord, the modern
   French department of the Dordogne.

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

PETRONILLA, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1137-1163.

PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455.

PEUCINI, The.

   "The Peucini derived their name from the little island Peuce
   (Piczino) at the mouth of the Danube. Pliny (iv. 14) speaks of
   them as a German people bordering on the Daci. They would thus
   stretch through Moldavia from the Carpathian Mountains to the
   Black Sea. Under the name Bastarnæ they are mentioned by Livy
   (xl. 57, 58) as a powerful people, who helped Philip, king of
   Macedonia, in his wars with the Romans. Plutarch ('Life of
   Paullus Æmilius,' ch. ix.) says they were the same as the
   Galatæ, who dwelt round the Ister (Danube). If so, they were
   Gauls, which Livy also implies."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

PEUKETIANS, The.

      See ŒNOTRIANS.

PEUTINGERIAN TABLE, The.

   This is the name given to the only copy which has survived of
   a Roman official road-chart. "Tables of this kind were not
   maps in the proper sense of the term, but were rather diagrams
   drawn purposely out of proportion, on which the public roads
   were projected in a panoramic view. The latitude and longitude
   and the positions of rivers and mountains were disregarded so
   far as they might interfere with the display of the provinces,
   the outlines being flattened out to suit the shape of a roll
   of parchment; but the distances between the stations were
   inserted in numerals, so that an extract from the record might
   be used as a supplement to the table of mileage in the
   road-book. The copy now remaining derives its name from Conrad
   Peutinger of Augsburg, in whose library it was found on his
   death in 1547. It is supposed to have been brought to Europe
   from a monastery in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, and to
   have been a copy taken by some thirteenth century scribe from
   an original assigned to the beginning of the fourth century or
   the end of the third.'

      _C. Elton,
      Origins of English History,
      chapter 11 and plate 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Ramsay,
      Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
      part 1, chapter 6._

PEVENSEY.

   The landing-place of William the Conqueror, September 28,
   A. D. 1066, when he came to win the crown of England.

      See, also, ANDERIDA.

PFALZ.
PFALZGRAF.

   In German, the term signifying Palatine and Palatine Count.

      See PALATINE COUNT.

PHACUSEH.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PHÆACIANS, The.

   "We are wholly at a loss to explain the reasons that led the
   Greeks in early times … to treat the Phæacians [of Homer's
   Odyssey] as a historical people, and to identify the Homeric
   Scheria with the island of Corcyra [modern Corfu]. … We must …
   be content to banish the kindly and hospitable Phæacians, as
   well as the barbarous Cyclopes and Læstrygones, to that outer
   zone of the Homeric world, in which everything was still
   shrouded in a veil of marvel and mystery."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 3, section 3 volume 1)._

PHALANGITES, The.

   The soldiers of the Macedonian phalanx.

{2528}

PHALANX, The Macedonian.

   "The main body, the phalanx—or quadruple phalanx, as it was
   sometimes called, to mark that it was formed of four
   divisions, each bearing the same name—presented a mass of
   18,000 men, which was distributed, at least by Alexander, into
   six brigades of 3,000 each, formidable in its aspect, and, on
   ground suited to its operations, irresistible in its attacks.
   The phalangite soldier wore the usual defensive armour of the
   Greek heavy infantry, helmet, breast-plate, and greaves; and
   almost the whole front of his person was covered with the long
   shield called the aspis. His weapons were a sword, long enough
   to enable a man in the second rank to reach an enemy who had
   come to close quarters with the comrade who stood before him,
   and the celebrated spear, known by the Macedonian name
   sarissa, four and twenty feet long. The sarissa, when couched,
   projected eighteen feet in front of the soldier, and the space
   between the ranks was such that those of the second rank were
   fifteen, those of the third twelve, those of the fourth nine,
   those of the fifth six, and those of the sixth three feet in
   advance of the first line; so that the man at the head of the
   file was guarded on each side by the points of six spears. The
   ordinary depth of the phalanx was of sixteen ranks. The men
   who stood too far behind to use their sarissas, and who
   therefore kept them raised until they advanced to fill a
   vacant place, still added to the pressure of the mass. As the
   efficacy of the phalanx depended on its compactness, and this
   again on the uniformity of its movements, the greatest care
   was taken to select the best soldiers for the foremost and
   hindmost ranks—the frames, as it were, of the engine. The bulk
   and core of the phalanx consisted of Macedonians; but it was
   composed in part of foreign troops."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 48._

PHALARIS,
   Brazen bull of.
   Epistles of.

   Phalaris is said to have been a rich man who made himself
   tyrant of the Greek city of Agrigentum in Sicily, about 570 B.
   C., and who distinguished himself above all others of his kind
   by his cruelties. He seems to have been especially infamous in
   early times on account of his brazen bull. "This piece of
   mechanism was hollow, and sufficiently capacious to contain
   one or more victims enclosed within it, to perish in tortures
   when the metal was heated: the cries of these suffering
   prisoners passed for the roarings of the animal. The artist
   was named Perillus, and is said to have been himself the first
   person burnt in it by order of the despot."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 43._

   At a later time Phalaris was represented as having been a man
   of culture and letters, and certain Epistles were ascribed to
   him which most scholars now regard as forgeries. The famous
   treatise of Bentley is thought to have settled the question.

PHALERUM.

   See PIRÆUS.

PHANARIOTS, The.

   "The reduction of Constantinople, in 1453, was mainly achieved
   by the extraordinary exploit of Mahomet II. in transporting
   his galleys from the Bosphorus to the interior of the harbour,
   by dragging them over land from Dolma Bactche, and again
   launching them opposite to the quarter denominated the Phanar,
   from a lantern suspended over the gate which there
   communicates with the city. The inhabitants of this district,
   either from terror or treachery, are said to have subsequently
   thrown open a passage to the conqueror; and Mahomet, as a
   remuneration, assigned them for their residence this portion
   of Constantinople, which has since continued to be occupied by
   the Patriarch and the most distinguished families of the
   Greeks. It is only, however, within the last century and a
   half that the Phanariots have attained any distinction beyond
   that of merchants and bankers, or that their name, from merely
   designating their residence, has been used to indicate their
   diplomatic employments."

      _Sir J. E. Tennent,
      History of Modern Greece,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Ottoman Power in Europe,
      chapter 4._

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania, Past and Present,
      chapter 13, sections 3-7._

PHARAOH, The title.

   The title Pharaoh which was given to the kings of ancient
   Egypt, "appears on the monuments as piraa, 'great house,' the
   palace in which the king lived being used to denote the king
   himself, just as in our own time the 'porte' or gate of the
   palace has become synonymous with the Turkish Sultan."

      _A. H. Sayee,
      Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
      chapter 2._

PHARAOHITES.

      See GYPSIES.

PHARISEES, The.

      See CHASIDIM; and SADDUCEES.

PHARSALIA, Battle of.

      See ROME: B. C. 48.

PHELPS' AND GORHAM'S PURCHASE.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PHERÆ.

   A town in ancient Thessaly which acquired an evil fame in
   Greek history, during the fourth century, B. C., by the power
   and the cruelty of the tyrants who ruled it and who extended
   their sway for a time over the greater part of Thessaly. Jason
   and Alexander were the most notorious of the brood.

PHILADELPHIA, Asia Minor.

   The city of Philadelphia, founded by Attalus Philadelphus of
   Pergamum, in eastern Lydia, not far from Sardes, was one in
   which Christianity flourished at an early day, and which
   prospered for several centuries, notwithstanding repeated
   calamities of earthquake. It was the last community of Greeks
   in Asia Minor which retained its independence of the Turks. It
   stood out for two generations in the midst of the Seljouk
   Turks, after all around it had succumbed. The brave city was
   finally taken by the Ottoman sultan, Bayezid, or Bajazet,
   about 1390. The Turks then gave it the name Alashehr.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 4, chapter 2, section 4 (volume 2)._

   ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: Start--------

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1641.-
   The first settlement, by New Haven colonists.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1682-1685.
   Penn's founding of the city.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682-1685.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1686-1692.
   Bradford's Press.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 15<15-1709.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1701.
   Chartered as a city.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1701-1718.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1719-1729.
   The first newspapers.
   Franklin's advent.

      See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1765.
   Patriotic self-denials.
   Non-importation agreements.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1774.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER)
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
   Reception of the news of Lexington and Concord.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-JUNE).

{2529}

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1775.
   The Second Continental Congress.

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

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
   The British army in the city.
   Removal of Congress to York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The gay winter with the British in the city.
   The Battle of the Kegs.
   The Mischianza.

   "The year 1778 found the British at Philadelphia in snug
   quarters, unembarrassed by the cares of the field, and, except
   for occasional detachments, free from other military duties
   than the necessary details of garrison life. The trifling
   affairs that occurred during the remainder of the season
   served rather as a zest to the pleasures which engaged them
   than as a serious occupation. … No sooner were they settled in
   their winter-quarters than the English set on foot scenes of
   gayety that were long remembered, and often with regret, by
   the younger part of the local gentry. … Of all the band, no
   one seems to have created such a pleasing impression or to
   have been so long admiringly remembered as André. His name in
   our own days lingered on the lips of every aged woman whose
   youth had seen her a belle in the royal lines. … The military
   feats about Philadelphia, in the earlier part of 1778, were
   neither numerous or important. Howe aimed at little more than
   keeping a passage clear for the country-people, within certain
   bounds, to come in with marketing. The incident known as the
   Battle of the Kegs was celebrated by Hopkinson in a very
   amusing song that, wedded to the air of Maggy Lander, was long
   the favorite of the American military vocalists; but it hardly
   seems to have been noticed at Philadelphia until the Whig
   version came in. The local newspapers say that, in January,
   1778, a barrel floating down the Delaware being taken up by
   some boys exploded in their hands, and killed or maimed one of
   them. A few days after, some of the transports fired a few
   guns at several other kegs that appeared on the tide; but no
   particular notice of the occurrence was taken. These torpedoes
   were sent down in the hope that they would damage the
   shipping." When Howe was displaced from the command and
   recalled, his officers, among whom he was very popular,
   resolved "to commemorate their esteem for him by an
   entertainment not less novel than splendid. This was the
   famous Mischianza [or Meschianza] of the 18th of May, 1778;
   the various nature of which is expressed by its name, while
   its conception is evidently taken from Lord Derby's fête
   champêtre at The Oaks, June 9th, 1774, on occasion of Lord
   Stanley's marriage to the Duke of Hamilton's daughter. … The
   regatta, or aquatic procession, in the Mischianza was
   suggested by a like pageant on the Thames, June 23rd, 1775. …
   A mock tournament—perhaps the first in America—was a part of
   the play."

      _W. Sargent,
      Life of Major John André,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 17 (volume 1)._

      _A. H. Wharton,
      Through Colonial Doorways,
      chapter 2._

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1778.
   Evacuation by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE).

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1780-1784.
   Founding of the Pennsylvania Bank
   and the Bank of North America.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1787.
   The sitting of the Federal Constitutional Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1876.
   The Centennial Exhibition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

   ----------PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania: End--------

PHILADELPHIA, Tenn., Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

PHILADELPHIA LIBRARY COMPANY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PHILIP,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 244-249.

   Philip, King of Macedon,
   The ascendancy in Greece of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358, and 357-336.

   Philip, King of the Pokanokets,
   and his war with the English.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D.1674-1675, to 1676-1678.

   Philip, King of Sweden, 1112-1118.

   Philip (called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1363-1404.

   Philip (called The Good), Duke of Burgundy, 1418-1467.

   Philip I. King of France, 1060-1108.

   Philip II. (called Augustus), King of France, 1180-1223.

   Philip II., King of the Two Sicilies, 1554-1598;
   Duke of Burgundy, 1555-1598;
   King of Spain, 1556-1598;
   King of Portugal, 1580-1598.

   Philip III. (called The Bold), King of France, 1270-1285.

   Philip III., King of Spain, Portugal and the Two Sicilies,
   and Duke of Burgundy, 1598-1621.

   Philip IV. (called The Fair), King of France, 1285-1314.

   Philip IV., King of Spain, 1621-1665;
   King of Portugal, 1621-1640.

   Philip V., King of France and Navarre, 1316-1322.

   Philip V., King of Spain (first of the Spanish-Bourbon line),
   1700-1746.

   Philip VI., King of France
   (the first king of the House of Valois), 1328-1350.

PHILIPHAUGH, Battle of (1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

PHILIPPI, The founding of.

   Philip of Macedonia in 356 B. C. took from the Thasians the
   rich gold-mining district of Pangæus, on the left bank of the
   Strymon on the border of Thrace, and settled a colony there in
   what afterwards became the important city of Philippi.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 42._

PHILIPPI, Battles of (B. C. 42).

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

PHILIPPI, West Virginia, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

PHILIPPICS OF DEMOSTHENES, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, and 351-348.

PHILIPPICUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 711-713.

PHILIPPOPOLIS, Capture of, by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   ----------PHILIPSBURG: Start--------

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1644.
   Taken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1648.
   Right of garrisoning secured to France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1676.
   Taken from France by the Imperialists.

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

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1679.
   Given up by France.

      See NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

PHILIPSBURG: A. D. 1734.
   Siege and reduction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   ----------PHILIPSBURG: End--------

{2530}

PHILISTINES, The.

   "One small nation alone, of all which dwelt on the land
   claimed by Israel, permanently refused to amalgamate itself
   with the circumcised peoples,—namely the uncircumcised
   Philistines. They occupied the lots which ought to have been
   conquered by Dan and Simeon, and had five principal cities,
   Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, Gath and Ekron, of which the three
   first are on the sea-coast. Ashdod and Gaza were places of
   great strength, capable of long resisting the efforts of
   Egyptian and Greek warfare. The Philistines cannot have been a
   populous nation, but they were far more advanced in the arts
   of peace and war than the Hebrews. Their position commanded
   the land traffic between Egypt and Canaan, and gave them
   access to the sea; hence perhaps their wealth and
   comparatively advanced civilization. Some learned men give
   credit to an account in Sanchoniathon, that they came from
   Crete." They gave their name to Palestine.

      _F. W. Newman,
      History of the Hebrew Monarchy,
      chapter 2._

   "Where the Philistines came from, and what they originally
   were, is not clear. That they moved up the coast from Egypt is
   certain; that they came from Kaphtor is also certain. But it
   by no means follows, as some argue, that Kaphtor and Egypt are
   the same region. … It appears more safe to identify Kaphtor
   with" Crete. "But to have traced the Philistines to Crete is
   not to have cleared up their origin, for early Crete was full
   of tribes from both east and west. … Take them as a whole, and
   the Philistines appear a Semitic people."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 16._

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 2, section 3._

      See, also,
      JEWS: THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN, and after.

PHILOCRATES, The Peace of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

PHLIUS, Siege of.

   Phlius, the chief city of the small mountain state of
   Phliasia, in the northeastern corner of Peloponnesus,
   adjoining Argos and Arcadia, made an heroic effort, B. C. 380,
   to maintain its liberties against Sparta. Under a valiant
   leader, Delphion, it endured a siege which lasted more than an
   entire year. When forced to surrender, in the end, it was
   treated with terrible severity by the Spartan king, Agesilaus.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 5._

PHOCÆANS, OR PHOKÆANS, The.

   "The citizens of Phocæa had been the last on the coast-line of
   Ionia [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES] to settle down to a
   condition of tranquillity. They had no building-ground but a
   rocky peninsula, where they found so little space over which
   to spread at their ease that this very circumstance made them
   a thorough people of sailors. In accordance with their local
   situation they had turned to the waters of the Pontus,
   established settlements on the Dardanelles and the Black Sea,
   and taken part in the trade with Egypt. Here however they were
   unable to hold their own by the side of the Milesians, … and
   the Phocæans accordingly saw themselves obliged to look
   westward and to follow the direction of Chalcidian navigation.
   … It was thus that the Ionian Phocæans came into the western
   sea. Being forced from the first to accustom themselves to
   long and distant voyages, instead of the easy summer trips of
   the other maritime cities, they became notably bold and heroic
   sailors. They began where the rest left off; they made voyages
   of discovery into regions avoided by others; they remained at
   sea even when the skies already showed signs of approaching
   winter and the observation of the stars became difficult. They
   built their ships long and slim, in order to increase their
   agility; their merchant vessels were at the same time
   men-of-war. … They entered those parts of the Adriatic which
   most abound in rocks, and circumnavigated the islands of the
   Tyrrhenian sea in spite of the Carthaginian guard–ships; they
   sought out the bays of Campania and the mouths of the Tiber
   and Arnus; they proceeded farther, past the Alpine ranges,
   along the coast as far as the mouth of the Rhodanus, and
   finally reached Iberia, with whose rich treasures of precious
   metals they had first become acquainted on the coast of Italy.
   … During the period when Ionia began to be hard pressed by the
   Lydians, the Phocæans, who had hitherto contented themselves
   with small commercial settlements, in their turn proceeded to
   the foundation of cities in Gaul and Iberia. The month of the
   Rhodanus [the Rhone] was of especial importance to them for
   the purposes of land and sea trade. … Massalia [modern
   Marseilles], from the forty-fifth Olympiad [B. C. 600] became
   a fixed seat of Hellenic culture in the land of the Celts,
   despite the hostility of the piratical tribes of Liguria and
   the Punic fleet. Large fisheries were established on the
   shore; and the stony soil in the immediate vicinity of the
   city itself was converted into vine and olive plantations. The
   roads leading inland were made level, which brought the
   products of the country to the mouth of the Rhone; and in the
   Celtic towns were set up mercantile establishments, which
   collected at Massalia the loads of British tin, of inestimable
   value for the manufacture of copper, while wine and oil, as
   well as works of art, particularly copper utensils, were
   supplied to the interior. A totally new horizon opened for
   Hellenic inquiry."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

PHOCAS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 602-610.

PHOCIANS, The.

      See PHOKIANS.

PHOCION, Execution of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

PHOCIS: B. C. 357-346.
   Seizure of Delphi.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with Thebes.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Heavy punishment by his hand.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

   ----------PHŒNICIANS: Start--------

PHŒNICIANS:
   Origin and early history.
   Commerce.
   Colonies.

   "The traditions of the Phœnicians collected at Tyre itself by
   Herodotus …; those of the inhabitants of Southern Arabia
   preserved by Strabo; and, finally, those still current in
   Babylonia during the first centuries of the Christian era,
   when the Syro-Chaldee original of the book of 'Nabathæan
   Agriculture' was revised—all agree in stating that the
   Canaanites at first lived near the Cushites, their brethren in
   race, on the banks of the Erythræan Sea, or Persian Gulf, on
   that portion of the coast of Bahrein designated El Katif on
   our modern maps of Arabia. Pliny speaks of a land of Canaan in
   this neighbourhood, in his time. … According to Tragus
   Pompeius, the Canaanites were driven from their first
   settlements by earthquakes, and then journeyed towards
   Southern Syria.
{2531}
   The traditions preserved in 'Nabathæan Agriculture' state, on
   the contrary, that they were violently expelled, in
   consequence of a quarrel with the Cushite monarchs of Babylon
   of the dynasty of Nimrod; and this is also the account given
   by the Arabian historians. … The entry of the Canaanites into
   Palestine, and their settlement in the entire country situated
   between the sea and the valley of Jordan, must … be placed
   between the period when the twelfth dynasty governed Egypt and
   that when the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, reigned as suzerain
   over all the Tigro-Euphrates basin. This brings us
   approximately between 2400 and 2300 B. C. … The Sidonians
   formed the first settlement, and always remained at the head
   of the Phœnician nation, which, at all periods of its history,
   even when joined by other peoples of the same race, called
   itself both 'Canaanite' and 'Sidonian.' … The Greek name,
   Phœnicians, of unknown origin, must not be applied to the
   whole of the nations of the race of Canaan who settled in
   Southern Syria; it belongs to the Canaanites of the sea coast
   only, who were always widely separated from the others.
   Phœnicia, in both classical history and geography, is merely
   that very narrow tract of land, hemmed in by mountains and
   sea, extending from Aradus on the north to the town of Acco on
   the south."

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      book 6, chapter 1._

   "Renan sums up the evidence when he says: 'The greater number
   of modern critics admit it as demonstrated, that the primitive
   abode of the Phœnicians must be placed on the Lower Euphrates,
   in the centre of the great commercial and maritime
   establishments of the Persian Gulf, conformably to the
   unanimous witness of antiquity.' The date, the causes, and the
   circumstances of the migration are involved in equal
   obscurity. The motive for it assigned by Justin is absurd,
   since no nation ever undertook a long and difficult migration
   on account of an earthquake. If we may resort to conjecture we
   should b inclined to suggest that the spirit of adventure gave
   the first impulse, and that afterwards the unexampled
   facilities for trade, which the Mediterranean coast was found
   to possess, attracted a continuous flow of immigrants from the
   sea of the Rising to that of the Setting Sun."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Story of Phœnicia,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 3._

   "The campaigns which the Pharaohs undertook against Syria and
   the land of the Euphrates after the expulsion of the Shepherds
   could not leave these cities [Sidon and others] unmoved. If
   the Zemar of the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III. is Zemar
   (Simyra) near Aradus, and Arathutu is Aradus itself, the
   territories of these cities were laid waste by this king in
   his sixth campaign (about the year 1580 B. C.); if Arkatu is
   Arka, south of Aradus, this place must have been destroyed in
   his fifteenth campaign (about the year 1570 B. C.). Sethos I.
   (1440-1400 B. C.) subdued the land of Limanon (i. e. the
   region of Lebanon). and caused cedars to be felled there. One
   of his inscriptions mentions Zor, i. e. Tyre, among the cities
   conquered by him. The son and successor of Sethos I., Ramses
   II., also forced his way in the first decades of the
   fourteenth century as far as the coasts of the Phenicians. At
   the mouth of the Nahr el Kelb, between Sidon and Berytus, the
   rocks on the coast display the memorial which he caused to be
   set up in the second and third year of his reign in honour of
   the successes obtained in this region. In the fifth year of
   his reign Ramses, with the king of the Cheta, defeats the king
   of Arathu in the neighbourhood of Kadeshu on the Orontes, and
   Ramses III., about the year 1310 B. C., mentions beside the
   Cheta who attack Egypt the people of Arathu, by which name in
   the one case as in the other, may be meant the warriors of
   Aradus. If Arathu, like Arathutu, is Aradus, it follows, from
   the position which Ramses II. and III. give to the princes of
   Arathu, that beside the power to which the kingdom of the
   Hittites had risen about the middle of the fifteenth century
   B. C., and which it maintained to the end of the fourteenth,
   the Phenician cities had assumed an independent position. The
   successes of the Pharaohs in Syria come to an end in the first
   decades of the fourteenth century. Egypt makes peace and
   enters into a contract of marriage with the royal house of the
   Cheta. … The overthrow of the kingdom of the Hittites, which
   succumbed to the attack of the Amorites soon after the year
   1300 B. C., must have had a reaction on the cities of the
   Phenicians. Expelled Hittites must have been driven to the
   coast-land, or have fled thither, and in the middle of the
   thirteenth century the successes gained by the Hebrews who
   broke in from the East, over the Amorites, the settlement of
   the Hebrews on the mountains of the Amorites [see JEWS:
   CONQUEST OF CANAAN], must again have thrown the vanquished, i.
   e. the fugitives of this nation, towards the coast. With this
   retirement of the older strata of the population of Canaan to
   the coast is connected the movement which from this period
   emanates from the coasts of the Phenicians, and is directed
   towards the islands of the Mediterranean and the Ægean. It is
   true that on this subject only the most scanty statements and
   traces, only the most legendary traditions have come down to
   us, so that we can ascertain these advances only in the most
   wavering outlines. One hundred miles to the west off the coast
   of Phenicia lies the island of Cyprus. … The western writers
   state that before the time of the Trojan war Belus had
   conquered and subjugated the island of Cyprus, and that Citium
   belonged to Belus. The victorious Belus is the Baal of the
   Phenicians. The date of the Trojan war is of no importance for
   the settlement of the Phenicians in Cyprus, for this statement
   is found in Virgil only. More important is the fact that the
   settlers brought the Babylonian cuneiform writing to Cyprus. …
   The settlement of the Sidonians in Cyprus must therefore have
   taken place before the time in which the alphabetic writing,
   i. e. the writing specially known as Phenician, was in use in
   Syria, and hence at the latest before 1100 B. C. … In the
   beginning of the tenth century B. C. the cities of Cyprus
   stood under the supremacy of the king of Tyre. The island was
   of extraordinary fertility. The forests furnished wood for
   ship-building; the mountains concealed rich veins of the metal
   which has obtained the name of copper from this island. Hence
   it was a very valuable acquisition, an essential strengthening
   of the power of Sidon in the older, and Tyre in the later
   period. …
{2532}
   As early as the fifteenth century B. C., we may regard the
   Phenician cities as the central points of a trade branching
   east and west, which must have been augmented by the fact that
   they conveyed not only products of the Syrian land to the
   Euphrates and the Nile, but could also carry the goods which
   they obtained in exchange in Egypt to Babylonia, and what they
   obtained beyond the Euphrates to Egypt. At the same time the
   fabrics of Babylon and Egypt roused them to emulation, and
   called forth an industry among the Phenicians which we see
   producing woven stuffs, vessels of clay and metal, ornaments
   and weapons, and becoming preeminent in the colouring of
   stuffs with the liquor of the purple-fish which are found on
   the Phenician coasts. This industry required above all things
   metals, of which Babylonia and Egypt were no less in need, and
   when the purple-fish of their own coasts were no longer
   sufficient for their extensive dyeing, colouring-matter had to
   be obtained. Large quantities of these fish produced a
   proportionately small amount of the dye. Copper-ore was found
   in Cyprus, gold in the island of Thasos, and purple-fish on
   the coasts of Hellas. When the fall of the kingdom of the
   Hittites and the overthrow of the Amorite princes in the south
   of Canaan augmented the numbers of the population on the
   coast, these cities were no longer content to obtain those
   possessions of the islands by merely landing and making
   exchanges with the inhabitants. Intercourse with
   semi-barbarous tribes must be protected by the sword. Good
   harbours were needed. … Thus arose protecting forts on the
   distant islands and coasts, which received the ships of the
   native land. … In order to obtain the raw material necessary
   for their industry no less than to carry off the surplus of
   population, the Phenicians were brought to colonise Cyprus,
   Rhodes, Crete, Thera, Melos, Oliarus, Samothrace, Imbros,
   Lemnos and Thasos. In the bays of Laconia and Argos, in the
   straits of Eubœa, purple–fish were found in extraordinary
   quantities. … We may conclude that the Phenicians must have
   set foot on Cyprus about the year 1250 B. C., and on the
   islands and coasts of Hellas about the year 1200 B. C.
   Thucydides observes that in ancient times the Phenicians had
   occupied the promontories of Sicily and the small islands
   lying around Sicily, in order to carry on trade with the
   Sicels. Diodorus Siculus tells us that when the Phenicians
   extended their trade to the western ocean they settled in the
   island of Melite (Malta), owing to its situation in the middle
   of the sea and excellent harbours, in order to have a refuge
   for their ships. … On Sardinia also, as Diodorus tells us, the
   Phenicians planted many colonies. The mountains of Sardinia
   contained iron, silver, and lead. … The legend of the Greeks
   makes Heracles, i. e. Baal Melkarth, lord of the whole West.
   As a fact, the colonies of the Phenicians went beyond Sardinia
   in this direction. Their first colonies on the north coast of
   Africa appear to have been planted where the shore runs out
   nearest Sicily; Hippo was apparently regarded as the oldest
   colony. In the legends of the coins mentioned above Hippo is
   named beside Tyre and Citium as a daughter of Sidon. … Ityke
   (atak, settlement, Utica), on the mouth of the Bagradas
   (Medsherda), takes the next place after this Hippo, if indeed
   it was not founded before it. Aristotle tells us that the
   Phenicians stated that Ityke was built 287 years before
   Carthage, and Pliny maintains that Ityke was founded 1,178
   years before his time. As Carthage was founded in the year 846
   B. C. [see CARTHAGE] Ityke, according to Aristotle's
   statement, was built in the year 1133 B. C. With this the
   statement of Pliny agrees. He wrote in the years 52-77 A. D.,
   and therefore he places the foundation of Ityke in the year
   1126 or 1100 B. C. About the same time, i. e. about the year
   1100 B. C., the Phenicians had already reached much further to
   the west. … When their undertakings succeeded according to
   their desire and they had collected great treasures, they
   resolved to traverse the sea beyond the pillars of Heracles,
   which is called Oceanus. First of all, on their passage
   through these pillars, they founded upon a peninsula of Europe
   a city which they called Gadeira. … This foundation of Gades,
   which on the coins is called Gadir and Agadir, i. e. wall,
   fortification, the modern Cadiz, and without doubt the most
   ancient city in Europe which has preserved its name, is said
   to have taken place in the year 1100 B. C. If Ityke was
   founded before 1100 B. C. or about that time, we have no
   reason to doubt the founding of Gades soon after that date.
   Hence the ships of the Phenicians would have reached the ocean
   about the time when Tiglath Pilesar I. left the Tigris with
   his army, trod the north of Syria, and looked on the
   Mediterranean."

      _M. Duncker,
      The History of Antiquity,
      book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

   "The typical Phœnician colony was only a trading station,
   inhabited by dealers, who had not ceased to be counted as
   citizens of the parent State. … In Phœnicia itself the chief
   object of public interest was the maintenance and extension of
   foreign trade. The wealth of the country depended on the
   profits of the merchants, and it was therefore the interest of
   the Government to encourage and protect the adventures of the
   citizens. Unlike the treasures or curiosities imported by the
   fleets of royal adventurers, Phœnician imports were not
   intended to be consumed within the country, but to be
   exchanged for the most part for other commodities. The
   products of all lands were brought to market there, and the
   market people, after supplying all their own wants in kind,
   still had commodities to sell at a profit to the rest of the
   world. The Government did not seek to retain a monopoly of
   this profit; on the contrary, private enterprise seems to have
   been more untrammelled than at any time before the present
   century. But individuals and the State were agreed in desiring
   to retain a monopoly of foreign traffic as against the rest of
   the world, hence the invention of 'Phœnician lies' about the
   dangers of the sea, and the real dangers which 'Tyrian seas'
   came to possess for navigators of any other nation. …
   Phœnician traders were everywhere first in the field, and it
   was easy for them to persuade their barbarous customers that
   foreigners of any other stock were dangerous and should be
   treated as enemies. They themselves relied more on stratagem
   than on open warfare to keep the seas, which they considered
   their own, free from other navigators. … Silver and gold, wool
   and purple, couches inlaid with ivory, Babylonish garments and
   carpets, unguents of all sorts, female slaves and musicians,
   are indicated by the comic poets as forming part of the
   typical cargo of a Phœnician merchantman, the value of which
   in many cases would reach a far higher figure than a small
   ship-owner or captain could command.
{2533}
   As a consequence, a good deal of banking or money-lending
   business was done by the wealthy members of the great
   Corporation of Merchants and Ship-owners. The Phœnicians had
   an evil reputation with the other nations of the Mediterranean
   for sharp practices, and the custom of lending money at
   interest was considered, of course wrongly, a Phœnician
   invention, though it is possible that they led the way in the
   general substitution of loans at interest for the more
   primitive use of antichretic pledges. … To the Greeks the name
   Phœnician seems to have called up the same sort of association
   as those which still cling to the name of Jew in circles which
   make no boast of tolerance; and it is probable enough that the
   first, like the second, great race of wandering traders was
   less scrupulous in its dealings with aliens than compatriots.
   … So far as the Punic race may be supposed to have merited its
   evil reputation, one is tempted to account for the fact by the
   character of its principal staples. All the products of all
   the countries of the world circulated in Phœnician
   merchantmen, but the two most considerable, and most
   profitable articles of trade in which they dealt were human
   beings and the precious metals. The Phœnicians were the
   slave-dealers and the money-changers of the Old World. And it
   is evident that a branch of trade, which necessarily follows
   the methods of piracy, is less favourable to the growth of the
   social virtues than the cultivation of the ground, the
   domestication of animals, or the arts and manufactures by
   which the products of nature are applied to new and varied
   uses. Compared with the trade in slaves, that in metals—gold,
   silver, copper and tin—must seem innocent and meritorious; yet
   the experience of ages seems to show that, somehow or other,
   mining is not a moralizing industry. … Sidon was famous in
   Homer's time for copper or bronze, and Tyre in Solomon's for
   bronze (the 'brass' of the Authorized Version); and the
   Phœnicians retailed the work of all other metallurgists as
   well as their own, as they retailed the manufactures of Egypt
   and Babylonia, and the gums and spices of Arabia. … Two things
   are certain with regard to the continental commerce of Europe
   before the written history of its northern countries begins.
   Tin and umber were conveyed by more than one route from
   Cornwall and the North Sea to Mediterranean ports. In the
   latter case the traders proceeded up the Rhine and the Aar,
   along the Jura to the Rhone, and thence down to Marseilles;
   and also across the Alps, by a track forking off, perhaps at
   Grenoble, into the valley of the Po, and so to the Adriatic. …
   Apart from the Phœnician sea trade, Cornish tin was conveyed
   partly by water to Armorica and to Marseilles through the west
   of France; but also to the east of England' (partly overland
   by the route known later as the Pilgrims' Way), and from the
   east of Kent, possibly to the seat of the amber trade, as well
   as to a route through the east of France, starting from the
   short Dover crossing."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 397-402._

   "The epigraphic texts left us by the Phœnicians are too short
   and dry to give us any of those vivid glimpses into the past
   that the historian loves. When we wish to make the men of Tyre
   and Sidon live again, when we try to see them as they moved in
   those seven or eight centuries during which they were supreme
   in the Mediterranean, we have to turn to the Greeks, to
   Herodotus and Homer, for the details of our picture; it is in
   their pages that we are told how these eastern traders made
   themselves indispensable to the half-savage races of Europe. …
   The Phœnicians carried on their trade in a leisurely way. It
   consisted for the most part in exchanging their manufactured
   wares for the natural produce of the countries they visited;
   it was in conformity with the spirit of the time, and,
   although it inspired distrust, it was regular enough in its
   methods. Stories told by both Homer and Herodotus show them to
   us as abductors of women and children, but in the then state
   of the world even deeds like those described would soon be
   forgotten, and after a time the faithless traders would be
   readmitted for the sake of the wares they brought. … Seeing
   how great their services were to the civilization of Greece
   and Rome, and how admirable were those virtues of industry,
   activity, and splendid courage that they brought to their
   work, how is it that the classic writers speak of the
   Phœnicians with so little sympathy? and why does the modern
   historian, in spite of his breadth and freedom from bias, find
   it difficult to treat them even with justice? It is because,
   in spite of their long relations with them, the peoples of
   Greece and Italy never learnt to really know the Phœnicians or
   to understand their language, and, to answer the second
   question, because our modern historians are hardly better
   informed. Between Greece and Rome on the one hand and Phœnicia
   and Carthage on the other, there was a barrier which was never
   beaten down. They traded and fought, but they never concluded
   a lasting and cordial peace; they made no effort to comprehend
   each other's nature, but retained their mutual, ignorant
   antipathy to the very end. … That full justice has never been
   done to the Phœnicians is partly their own fault. They were
   moved neither by the passion for truth nor by that for beauty;
   they cared only for gain, and thanks to the condition of the
   world at the time they entered upon the scene, they could
   satisfy that lust to the full. In the barter trade they
   carried on for so many centuries the advantage must always
   have been for the more civilized, and the Phœnicians used and
   abused that advantage. Tyre and Sidon acquired prodigious
   wealth; the minds of their people were exclusively occupied
   with the useful; they were thinking always of the immediate
   profit to themselves in every transaction; and to such a
   people the world readily denies justice, to say nothing of
   indulgence. … No doubt it may be said that it was quite
   without their goodwill that the Phœnicians helped other
   nations to shake off barbarism and to supply themselves with
   the material of civilized life. That, of course, is true, but
   it does not diminish the importance of the results obtained
   through their means. Phœnicia appropriated for herself all the
   inventions and recipes of the old eastern civilizations and by
   more than one happy discovery, and especially by the invention
   of the alphabet, she added to the value of the treasure thus
   accumulated. Whether she meant it or not, she did, as a fact,
   devote her energies to the dissemination of all this precious
   knowledge from the very day on which she entered into
   relations with those tribes on the Grecian islands and on the
   continent of Europe which were as yet strangers to political
   life. …
{2534}
   At the time of their greatest expansion, the true Phœnicians
   numbered, at the very most, a few hundreds of thousands. It
   was with such scanty numbers that they contrived to be present
   everywhere, to construct ports of refuge for their ships,
   factories for their merchants and warehouses for their goods.
   These 'English of antiquity,' as they have been so well
   called, upheld their power by means very similar to those
   employed by England, who has succeeded for two centuries in
   holding together her vast colonial empire by a handful of
   soldiers and a huge fleet of ships. The great difference lies
   in the fact that Tyre made no attempt to subjugate and govern
   the nations she traded with."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      History of Art in Phœnicia,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

   The ascendancy among Phœnician cities passed at some early day
   from Sidon to Tyre, and the decline of the former has been
   ascribed to an attack from the Philistines of Ascalon, which
   occurred about 1250 or 1200 B. C. But the explanation seems
   questionable.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 14._

      See TYRE.

PHŒNICIANS:
   Coinage and Money.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: PHŒNICIA.

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.
   Subjection to Assyria and Babylonia.

   About 850 B. C. "the military expeditions of the Assyrians
   began to reach Southern Syria, and Phœnician independence
   seems to have been lost. We cannot be sure that the submission
   was continuous; but from the middle of the ninth till past the
   middle of the eighth century there occur in the contemporary
   monuments of Assyria plain indications of Phœnician
   subjection, while there is no evidence of resistance or
   revolt. … About B. C. 743 the passive submission of Phœnicia
   to the Assyrian yoke began to be exchanged for an impatience
   of it, and frequent efforts were made, from this date till
   Nineveh fell, to re-establish Phœnician independence. These
   efforts for the most part failed; but it is not improbable
   that finally, amid the troubles under which the Assyrian
   empire succumbed, success crowned the nation's patriotic
   exertions, and autonomy was recovered. … Scarcely, however,
   had Assyria fallen when a new enemy appeared upon the scene.
   Nechoh of Egypt, about B. C. 608, conquered the whole tract
   between his own borders and the Euphrates. Phœnicia submitted
   or was reduced, and remained for three years an Egyptian
   dependency. Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 605, after his defeat of
   Nechoh at Carchemish, added Phœnicia to Babylon; and, though
   Tyre revolted from him eight years later, B. C. 598, and
   resisted for thirteen years all his attempts to reduce her,
   yet at length she was compelled to submit, and the Babylonian
   yoke was firmly fixed on the entire Phœnician people. It is
   not quite certain that they did not shake it off upon the
   death of the great Babylonian king; but, on the whole,
   probability is in favour of their having remained subject till
   the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, B. C. 538."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Manual of Ancient History,
      book 1, part 1, section 6._

   "It appears to have been only a few years after
   Nebuchadnezzar's triumphant campaign against Neco that renewed
   troubles broke out in Syria. Phœnicia revolted under the
   leadership of Tyre; and about the same time Jehoiakim, the
   Jewish king, having obtained a promise of aid from the
   Egyptians, renounced his allegiance. Upon this, in his seventh
   year (B. C. 598), Nebuchadnezzar proceeded once more into
   Palestine at the head of a vast army, composed partly of his
   allies, the Medes, partly of his own subjects. He first
   invested Tyre; but finding that city too strong to be taken by
   assault, he left a portion of his army to continue the siege,
   while he himself pressed forward against Jerusalem. … The
   siege of Tyre was still being pressed at the date of the
   second investment of Jerusalem. … Tyre, if it fell at the end
   of its thirteen years' siege, must have been taken in the very
   year which followed the capture of Jerusalem, B. C. 585. … It
   has been questioned whether the real Tyre, the island city,
   actually fell on this occasion (Heeren, As. Nat. volume ii.
   page 11, E. T.; Kenrick, Phœnicia, page 390), chiefly because
   Ezekiel says, about B. C. 570, that Nebuchadnezzar had
   'received no wages for the service that he served against it.'
   (Ezekiel xxix. 18.) But this passage may be understood to mean
   that he had had no sufficient wages. Berosus expressly stated
   that Nebuchadnezzar reduced all Phœnicia."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
      chapter 8, and footnote._

PHŒNICIANS:
   Later commerce.

   "The commerce of Phœnicia appears to have reached its greatest
   height about the time of the rise of the Chaldæan power at
   Babylon. Its monopoly may have been more complete in earlier
   times, but the range of its traffic was more confined.
   Nebuchadnezzar was impelled to attempt its conquest by a
   double motive—to possess himself of its riches and to become
   master of its harbours and its navy. The prophet Ezekiel
   (chapter 27), foretelling his siege of Tyre, has drawn a
   picture of its commerce, which is the most valuable document
   for its commercial history that has come down to us. …
   Directly or indirectly, the commerce of Tyre, in the beginning
   of the sixth century before Christ, thus embraced the whole
   known world. By means of the Arabian and the Persian gulfs it
   communicated with India and the coast of Africa towards the
   equator. On the north its vessels found their way along the
   Euxine to the frozen borders of Scythia. Beyond the Straits of
   Gibraltar, its ships, or those of its colony of Gades, visited
   the British isles for tin, if they did not penetrate into the
   Baltic to bring back amber. Ezekiel says nothing of the
   voyages of the Tyrians in the Atlantic ocean, which lay beyond
   the limits of Jewish geography; but it is probable that they
   had several centuries before passed the limits of the Desert
   on the western coast of Africa, and by the discovery of one of
   the Canaries had given rise to the Greek fable of the Islands
   of the Blessed."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. H. L. Heeren,
      Historical Researches,
      volume 1._

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      chapter 3._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapters 9, and 14, section 2._

      _R. Bosworth Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 1._

PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 332, and after.
   Final history.

      See TYRE.

   ----------PHŒNICIANS: End--------

PHOENIX CLUBS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867.

PHOENIX PARK MURDERS, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

{2535}

PHOKIANS, The.

   "The Phokians [in ancient Greece] were bounded on the north by
   the little territories called Doris and Dryopis, which separated
   them from the Malians,—on the northeast, east and south-west
   by the different branches of Lokrians,—and on the south-east
   by the Bœotians. They touched the Eubœan sea … at Daphnus, the
   point where it approaches nearest to their chief town,
   Elateia; their territory also comprised most part of the lofty
   and bleak range of Parnassus, as far as its southerly
   termination, where a lower portion of it, called Kirphis,
   projects into the Corinthian Gulf, between the two bays of
   Antikyra and Krissa; the latter, with its once fertile plain,
   was in proximity to the sacred rock of the Delphian Apollo.
   Both Delphi and Krissa originally belonged to the Phokian
   race. But the sanctity of the temple, together with
   Lacedæmonian aid, enabled the Delphians to set up for
   themselves, disavowing their connexion with the Phokian
   brotherhood. Territorially speaking, the most valuable part of
   Phokis consisted in the valley of the river Kephisus. … It was
   on the projecting mountain ledges and rocks on each side of
   this river that the numerous little Phokian towns were
   situated. Twenty-two of them were destroyed and broken up into
   villages by the Amphiktyonic order, after the second Sacred
   War."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 3._

      See SACRED WARS.

PHORMIO, and the sea victories of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PHRATRIÆ.

      See PHYLÆ:
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

PHRYGIAN CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

PHRYGIAN SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

PHRYGIANS.
MYSIANS.

   "When the Assyrians in the thirteenth century [B. C.] advanced
   past the springs of the Euphrates into the western peninsula
   [of Asia Minor], they found, on the central table-land, a
   mighty body of native population—the Phrygians. The remains of
   their language tend to show them to have been the central link
   between the Greeks and the elder Aryans. They called their
   Zeus Bagalus ('baga' in ancient Persian signifying God;
   'bhaga,' in Sanscrit, fortune), or Sabazius, from a verb
   common to Indian and Greek, and signifying 'to adore.' They
   possessed the vowels of the Greeks, and in the terminations of
   words changed the 'm' into 'n.' Kept off from the sea, they,
   it is true, lagged behind the coast tribes in civilization,
   and were regarded by these as men slow of understanding and
   only suited for inferior duties in human society. Yet they too
   had a great and independent post of their own, which is
   mirrored in the native myths of their kings. The home of these
   myths is especially in the northern regions of Phrygia, on the
   banks of the springs which feed the Sangarius, flowing in
   mighty curves through Bithynia into Pontus. Here traditions
   survived of the ancient kings of the land, of Gordius and
   Midas."

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

   "As far us any positive opinion can be formed respecting
   nations of whom we know so little, it would appear that the
   Mysians and Phrygians are a sort of connecting link between
   Lydians and Karians on one side, and Thracians (European as
   well as Asiatic) on the other—a remote ethnical affinity
   pervading the whole. Ancient migrations are spoken of in both
   directions across the Hellespont and the Thracian Bosphorus.
   It was the opinion of some that Phrygians, Mysians and
   Thracians had immigrated into Asia from Europe. … On the other
   hand, Herodotus speaks of a vast body of Teukrians and Mysians
   who, before the Trojan war, had crossed the strait from Asia
   into Europe. … The Phrygians also are supposed by some to have
   originally occupied an European soil on the borders of
   Macedonia, … while the Mysians are said to have come from the
   northeastern portions of European Thrace south of the Danube,
   known under the Roman empire by the name of Mœsia. But with
   respect to the Mysians there was also another story, according
   to which they were described as colonists emanating from the
   Lydians. … And this last opinion was supported by the
   character of the Mysian language, half Lydian and half
   Phrygian."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 16._

   The Mysians occupied the north-western corner of Asia Minor,
   including the region of the Troad. "In the works of the great
   Greek writers which have come down to us, notably, in the
   histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the Phrygians figure
   but little. To the Greeks generally they were known but as the
   race whence most of their slaves were drawn, as a people
   branded with the qualities of slaves, idleness, cowardice,
   effeminacy. … From the Phrygians came those orgiastic forms of
   religious cult which were connected with the worship of
   Dionysus and of the Mother of the Gods, orgies which led alike
   to sensual excess and to hideous self–mutilations, to
   semi-religious frenzy and bestial immoralities, against which
   the strong good sense of the better Greeks set itself at all
   periods, though it could not deprive them of their attractions
   for the lowest of the people. And yet it was to this race sunk
   in corruption, except when roused by frenzy, that the warlike
   Trojan stock belonged. Hector and Aeneas were Phrygians; and
   the most manly race of the ancient world, the Romans, were
   proud of their supposed descent from shepherds of Phrygia."

      _P. Gardner,
      New Chapters in Greek History,
      chapter 2._

PHUT.

      See LIBYANS.

PHYLÆ.
PHRATRIÆ.
GENTES.

   "In all Greek states, without exception, the people was
   divided into tribes or Phylæ, and those again into the smaller
   subdivisions of Phratriæ and gentes, and the distribution so
   made was employed to a greater or less extent for the common
   organisation of the State."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   The four Attic tribes were called, during the later period of
   that division, the Geleontes, Hopletes, Ægikoreis, and
   Argadeis. "It is affirmed, and with some etymological
   plausibility, that the denominations of these four tribes must
   originally have had reference to the occupations of those who
   bore them,—the Hopletes being the warriour-class, the
   Ægikoreis goatherds, the Argadeis artisans, and the Geleontes
   (Teleontes or Gedeontes) cultivators. Hence some authors have
   ascribed to the ancient inhabitants of Attica an actual
   primitive distribution into hereditary professions or castes,
   similar to that which prevailed in India and Egypt. If we
   should even grant that such a division into castes might
   originally have prevailed, it must have grown obsolete long
   before the time of Solon; but there seem no sufficient grounds
   for believing that it ever did prevail. … The four tribes, and
   the four names (allowing for some variations of reading), are
   therefore historically verified. But neither the time of their
   introduction, nor their primitive import, are ascertainable
   matters. …
{2536}
   These four tribes may be looked at either as religious and
   social aggregates, in which capacity each of them comprised
   three Phratries and ninety Gentes; or as political aggregates,
   in which point of view each included three Trittyes and twelve
   Naukraries. Each Phratry contained thirty Gentes; each Trittys
   comprised four Naukraries: the total numbers were thus 360
   Gentes and 48 Naukraries. Moreover, each gens is said to have
   contained thirty heads of families, of whom therefore there
   would be a total of 10,800. … That every Phratry contained an
   equal number of Gentes, and every Gens an equal number of
   families, is a supposition hardly admissible without better
   evidence than we possess. But apart from this questionable
   precision of numerical scale, the Phratries and Gentes
   themselves were real, ancient and durable associations among
   the Athenian people, highly important to be understood. The
   basis of the whole was the house, hearth or family,—a number
   of which, greater or less, composed the Gens, or Genos. This
   Gens was therefore a clan, sept, or enlarged, and partly
   factitious, brotherhood. … All these phratric and gentile
   associations, the larger as well as the smaller, were founded
   upon the same principles and tendencies of the Grecian mind—a
   coalescence of the idea of worship with that of ancestry, or
   of communion in certain special religious rites with communion
   of blood, real or supposed. The god, or hero, to whom the
   assembled members offered their sacrifices, was conceived as
   the primitive ancestor, to whom they owed their origin. … The
   revolution of Kleisthenes in 509 B. C. abolished the old
   tribes for civil purposes, and created ten new tribes,—leaving
   the Phratries and Gentes unaltered, but introducing the local
   distribution according to demes or cantons, as the foundation
   of his new political tribes. A certain number of demes
   belonged to each of the ten Kleisthenean tribes (the demes in
   the same tribes were not usually contiguous, so that the tribe
   was not coincident with a definite circumscription), and the
   deme, in which every individual was then registered, continued
   to be that in which his descendants were also registered. …
   The different Gentes were very unequal in dignity, arising
   chiefly from the religious ceremonies of which each possessed
   the hereditary and exclusive administration, and which, being
   in some cases considered as of preeminent sanctity in
   reference to the whole city, were therefore nationalized. Thus
   the Eumolpidæ and Kerykes, who supplied the Hierophant and
   superintended the mysteries of the Eleusinian Demeter—and the
   Butadæ, who furnished the priestess of Athene Polias as well
   as the priest of Poseidon Erechtheus in the acropolis—seem to
   have been reverenced above all the other Gentes. When the name
   Butadæ was selected in the Kleisthenean arrangement as the
   name of a deme, the holy Gens so called adopted the
   distinctive denomination of Eteobutadæ, or 'The true Butadæ.'"

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 3, chapter 1._

PHYLARCH.

      See TAXIARCH.

PHYLE.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

PHYSICIANS, First English College of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, 16TH CENTURY.

PIACENZA.

      See PLACENTIA.

PIAGNONI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

PIANKISHAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

PIASTS,
PIASSES, The.

      See POLAND: BEGINNINGS, &c.

PIAVE, Battle on the.

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

PI-BESETH.

      See BUBASTIS.

PICARDS, The Religions Sect of the.

   "The reforming movement of Bohemia [15th century] had drawn
   thither persons from other countries whose opinions were
   obnoxious to the authorities of the church. Among these, the
   most remarkable were known by the name of Picards,—apparently
   a form of the word 'beghards' [see BEGUINES], which … was then
   widely applied to sectaries. These Picards appear to have come
   from the Low Countries."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 8, page 24._

      See, also, PAULICIANS.

PICARDY.
PICARDS.

   "Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and
   from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than
   A. D. 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first
   applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students in the
   university of Paris who came from the frontier of France and
   Flanders."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 58, foot-note 1._

PICENIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

PICHEGRU, Campaign and political intrigues of.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY);
      1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);
      1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);
      1797 (SEPTEMBER);
      1804-1805.

PICHINCHA, Battle of (1822).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PICKAWILLANY.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1764.

PICTAVI.

      See POITIERS: ORIGINAL NAMES.

PICTONES, The.

   "The Pictones [of ancient Gaul], whose name is represented by
   Poitou, and the Santones (Saintonge) occupied the coast
   between the lower Loire and the great aestuary of the
   Garonne."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6._

PICTS AND SCOTS.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PICTURE-WRITING.

      See AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING;
      also HIEROGLYPHICS.

PIE-POWDER COURT, The.

   "There was one special court [in London, during the Middle
   Ages], which met to decide disputes arising on market-days, or
   among travellers and men of business, and which reminds us of
   the old English tendency to decide quickly and definitely,
   without entering into any long written or verbal consideration
   of the question at issue; and this was known as the Pie-powder
   Court, a corruption of the old French words. 'pieds poudres,'
   the Latin 'pedes pulverizati,' in which the complainant and
   the accused were supposed not to have shaken the dust from off
   their feet."

      _R. Pauli,
      Pictures of Old England,
      chapter 12._

PIECES OF EIGHT.

      See SPANISH COINS.

PIEDMONT: Primitive inhabitants.

      See LIGURIANS.

PIEDMONT: History.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT.

PIEDMONT, VIRGINIA., Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      THE CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

{2537}

PIEGANS.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

PIERCE, Franklin:
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852, to 1857.

   ----------PIGNEROL: Start--------

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1630-1631
   Siege, capture and purchase by the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1648.
   Secured to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PIGNEROL: A. D. 1697.
   Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1580-1713.

   ----------PIGNEROL: End--------

PIGNEROL, Treaty of.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

PIKE'S PEAK MINING REGION.

      See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

PILATE, Pontius.

      See JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44;
      and A. D. 26.

PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

PILGRIMS.
PILGRIM FATHERS.

   In American history, the familiar designation of the little
   company of English colonists who sailed for the New World in
   the Mayflower, A. D. 1620, seeking religious freedom, and who
   landed at Plymouth Rock.

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS,
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

   ----------PILLOW, Fort: Start--------

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1862.
   Evacuated by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PILLOW, Fort: A. D. 1864.
   Capture and Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

   ----------PILLOW, Fort: End--------

PILNITZ, The Declaration of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

PILOT KNOB, Attack on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PILSEN, Capture by Count Ernest of Mansfeld (1618).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

PILUM, The.

   The Roman spear was called the pilum. "It was, according to
   [Polybius], a spear having a very large iron head or blade,
   and this was carried by a socket to receive the shaft. … By
   the soldiers of the legions, to whom the use of the pilum was
   restricted, this weapon was both hurled from the hand as a
   javelin, and grasped firmly, as well for the charge as to
   resist and beat down hostile attacks."

      _P. Lacombe,
      Arms and Armour,
      chapter 4._

PIMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PIMAN FAMILY.

PIMENTEIRAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

PINDARIS,
PINDHARIES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

PINE TREE MONEY.

   Between 1652 and 1684 the colony of Massachusetts coined
   silver shillings and smaller coins, which bore on their faces
   the rude figure of a pine tree, and are called "pine tree
   money."

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 17TH CENTURY.

PINEROLO.

      See PIGNEROL.

PINKIE, Battle of (1547).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

PIPE ROLLS.

      See EXCHEQUER.

PIPPIN, OR PEPIN, of Heristal,
   Austrasian Mayor of the Palace, and Duke of the Franks,
   A. D. 687-714.

   Pippin, or Pepin, the Short,
   Duke and Prince of the Franks, 741-752;
   King, 752-768.

PIQUETS AND ZINGLINS.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

PIRÆUS, The.

   This was the important harbor of Athens, constructed and
   fortified during and after the Persian wars; a work which the
   Athenians owed to the genius and energy of Themistocles. The
   name was sometimes applied to the whole peninsula in which the
   Piræus is situated, and which contained two other
   harbors—Munychia and Zea. Phalerum, which had previously been
   the harbor of Athens, lay to the east. The walls built by
   Themistocles "were carried round the whole of the peninsula in
   a circumference of seven miles, following the bend of its
   rocky rim, and including the three harbour-bays. At the mouths
   of each of the harbours a pair of towers rose opposite to one
   another at so short a distance that it was possible to connect
   them by means of chains: these were the locks of the Piræus.
   The walls, about 16 feet thick, were built without mortar, of
   rectangular blocks throughout, and were raised to a height of
   30 feet by Themistocles, who is said to have originally
   intended to give them double that height."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 3, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 10._

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

PIRATES OF CILICIA, The.

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

PIRMASENS, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF TUE WAR.

PIRNA, Saxon Surrender at.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

PIRU,
CHONTAQUIROS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: ANDESIANS.

PISA, Greece.

      See ELIS; and OLYMPIC GAMES.

   ----------PISA, Italy: Start--------

PISA, Italy:
   Origin of the city.
   Early growth of its commerce and naval power.
   Conquest of Sardinia.

   Strabo and others have given Pisa a Grecian origin. "Situated
   near the sea upon the triangle formed in past ages, by the
   confluence of the two rivers, the Arno and the Serchio; she
   was highly adapted to commerce and navigation; particularly in
   times when these were carried on with small vessels. We
   consequently find that she was rich and mercantile in early
   times, and frequented by all the barbarous nations. … Down to
   the end of the fifteenth century, almost all the navigation of
   the nations of Europe, as well as those of Asia and Africa,
   which kept a correspondence and commerce with the former, was
   limited to the Mediterranean, Adriatic, Archipelago, and
   Euxine seas; and the first three Italian republics, Pisa,
   Genoa, and Venice, were for a long time mistresses of it.
   Pisa, as far back as the year 925, was the principal city of
   Tuscany, according to Luitprand. In the beginning of the
   eleventh century, that is, in the year 1004, we find in the
   Pisan annals, that the latter waged war with the Lucchese and
   beat them; this is the first enterprise of one Italian city
   against another, which proves that she already acted for
   herself, and was in great part, if not wholly, liberated from
   the dominion of the Duke of Tuscany.
{2538}
   In the Pisan annals, and in other authors, we meet with a
   series of enterprises, many of which are obscurely related, or
   perhaps exaggerated. Thus we find that in the year 1005, in an
   expedition of the Pisans against the maritime city of Reggio,
   Pisa being left unprovided with defenders, Musetto, king, or
   head, of the Saracens, who occupied Sardinia, seized the
   opportunity of making an invasion; and having sacked the city,
   departed, or was driven out of it. … It was very natural for
   the Pisans and Genoese, who must have been in continual fear
   of the piracies and invasions of the barbarians as long as
   they occupied Sardinia, to think seriously of exterminating
   them from that country: the pope himself sent the Bishop of
   Ostia in haste to the Pisans as legate, to encourage them to
   the enterprise: who, joining with the Genoese, conquered
   Sardinia [1017] by driving out the Saracens; and the pope, by
   the right he thought he possessed over all the kingdoms of the
   earth, invested the Pisans with the dominion; not however
   without exciting the jealousy of the Genoese, who, as they
   were less powerful in those times, were obliged to yield to
   force. The mutual necessity of defence from the common enemy
   kept them united; the barbarians having disembarked in the
   year 1020 in Sardinia under the same leader, they were again
   repulsed, and all their treasure which remained a booty of the
   conquerors, was conceded to the Genoese as an indemnity for
   the expense."

      _L. Pignotti,
      History of Tuscany,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
   Architectural development.
   Disastrous war with Genoa.
   The great defeat at Meloria.
   Count Ugolino and his fate.
   War with Florence and Lucca.

   "The republic of Pisa was one of the first to make known to
   the world the riches and power which a small state might
   acquire by the aid of commerce and liberty. Pisa had
   astonished the shores of the Mediterranean by the number of
   vessels and galleys that sailed under her flag, by the succor
   she had given the crusaders, by the fear she had inspired at
   Constantinople, and by the conquest of Sardinia and the
   Balearic Isles. Pisa was the first to introduce into Tuscany
   the arts that ennoble wealth: her dome, her baptistery, her
   leaning tower, and her Campo Santo, which the traveller's eye
   embraces at one glance, but does not weary of beholding, had
   been successively built from the year 1063 to the end of the
   12th century. These chefs-d'œuvre had animated the genius of
   the Pisans; the great architects of the 13th century were, for
   the most part, pupils of Nicolas di Pisa. But the moment was
   come in which the ruin of this glorious republic was at hand;
   a deep-rooted jealousy, to be dated from the conquest of
   Sardinia, had frequently, during the last two centuries, armed
   against each other the republics of Genoa and Pisa: a new war
   between them broke out in 1282. It is difficult to comprehend
   how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets
   as those of Pisa and Genoa. In 1282, Ginicel Sismondi
   commanded 30 Pisan galleys, of which he lost the half in a
   tempest, on the 9th of September; the following year, Rosso
   Sismondi commanded 64; in 1284, Guido Jacia commanded 24, and
   was vanquished. The Pisans had recourse the same year to a
   Venetian admiral, Alberto Morosini, to whom they intrusted 103
   galleys: but whatever efforts they made, the Genoese
   constantly opposed a superior fleet. This year [1284],
   however, all the male population of the two republics seemed
   assembled on their vessels; they met on the 6th of August,
   1284, once more before the Isle of Meloria, rendered famous 43
   years before by the victory of the Pisans over the same
   enemies [when the Ghibelline friendship of Pisa for the
   Emperor Frederick II. induced her to intercept and attack, on
   the 3d of May, 1241, a Genoese fleet which conveyed many
   prelates to a great council called by Pope Gregory IX. with
   hostile intentions towards the Emperor, and which the latter
   desired to prevent]. Valor was still the same, but fortune had
   changed sides; and a terrible disaster effaced the memory of
   an ancient victory. While the two fleets, almost equal in
   number, were engaged, a reinforcement of 30 Genoese galleys,
   driven impetuously by the wind, struck the Pisan fleet in
   flank: 7 of their vessels were instantly sunk, 28 taken. 5,000
   citizens perished in the battle, and 11,000 who were taken
   prisoners to Genoa preferred death in captivity rather than
   their republic should ransom them, by giving up Sardinia to
   the Genoese. This prodigious loss ruined the maritime power of
   Pisa; the same nautical knowledge, the same spirit of
   enterprise, were not transmitted to the next generation. All
   the fishermen of the coast quitted the Pisan galleys for those
   of Genoa. The vessels diminished in number, with the means of
   manning them; and Pisa could no longer pretend to be more than
   the third maritime power in Italy. While the republic was thus
   exhausted by this great reverse of fortune, it was attacked by
   the league of the Tuscan Guelphs; and a powerful citizen, to
   whom it had intrusted itself, betrayed his country to enslave
   it. Ugolino was count of the Gherardesca, a mountainous
   country situated along the coast, between Leghorn and
   Piombino: he was of Ghibeline origin, but had married his
   sister to Giovan di Gallura, chief of the Guelphs of Pisa and
   of Sardinia. From that time he artfully opposed the Guelphs to
   the Ghibelines." The Pisans, thinking him to be the person
   best able to reconcile Pisa with the Guelph league "named
   Ugolino captain-general for ten years: and the new commander
   did, indeed, obtain peace with the Guelph league; but not till
   he had caused all the fortresses of the Pisan territory to be
   opened by his creatures to the Lucchese and Florentines. …
   From that time he sought only to strengthen his own
   despotism." In July, 1288, there was a rising of the Pisans
   against him; his palace was stormed and burned; and he, his
   two sons and two grandsons, were dragged out of the flames, to
   be locked in a tower and starved to death—as told in the verse
   of Dante. "The victory over count Ugolino, achieved by the
   most ardent of the Ghibelines,. redoubled the enthusiasm and
   audacity of that party; and soon determined them to renew the
   war with the Guelphs of Tuscany. … Guido de Montefeltro was
   named captain. He had acquired a high reputation in defending
   Forli against the French forces of Charles of Anjou; and the
   republic had not to repent of its choice. He recovered by
   force of arms all the fortresses which Ugolino had given up to
   the Lucchese and Florentines. The Pisan militia, whom
   Montefeltro armed with cross-bows, which he had trained them
   to use with precision, became the terror of Tuscany. The
   Guelphs of Florence and Lucca were glad to make peace in
   1293."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 5._

{2539}

   In 1290, when Pisa was in her greatest distress, Genoa
   suddenly joined again in the attack on her ancient rival. She
   sent an expedition under Conrad d'Oria which entered the
   harbor of Pisa, pulled down its towers, its bridge and its
   forts, and carried away the chain which locked the harbor
   entrance. The latter trophy was only restored to Pisa in
   recent years.

      _J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 1, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

PISA: A. D. 1100-1111.
   Participation in the first Crusades.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

PISA: A. D. 1135-1137.
   Destruction of Amalfi.

      See AMALFI.

PISA: 13th Century.
   Commercial rivalry with Venice and Genoa at Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

PISA: A. D. 1311-1313.
   Welcome to the Emperor Henry VII.
   Aid to his war against Florence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

PISA: A. D. 1313-1328.
   Military successes under Uguccione della Faggiuola.
   His tyranny and its overthrow.
   Subjection to Castruccio Castracani and the deliverance.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

PISA: A. D. 1341.
   Defeat of the Florentines before Lucca.
   Acquisition of that city.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

PISA: A. D. 1353-1364.
   Dealings with the Free Companies.
   War with Florence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

PISA: A. D. 1399-1406.
   Betrayal to Visconti of Milan.
   Sale to the Florentines.
   Conquest by them and subsequent decline.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

PISA: A. D. 1409.
   The General Council of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.
   Delivered by the French.
   The faithlessness of Charles VIII.
   Thirteen years of struggle against Florence.
   Final surrender.

   "The Florentine conquest was the beginning of 90 years of
   slavery for Pisa —a terrible slavery, heavy with exaggerated
   imports, bitter with the tolerated plunder of private
   Florentines, humiliating with continual espionage. … Pisa was
   the Ireland of Florence, captive and yet unvanquished. … At
   last a favourable chance was offered to the Pisans. … In the
   autumn of 1494, the armies of Charles VIII. poured into Italy
   [see ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496]. It had been the custom of the
   Florentines, in times of war and danger, to call the heads of
   every Pisan household into Florence, as hostages for the good
   behaviour of their families and fellow citizens. But in the
   autumn of 1494, Piero de' Medici who forgot everything, who
   had forgotten to garrison his frontier, forgot to call the
   Pisan hostages to Florence, although the French were steadily
   advancing on Tuscany, and the Pisans eager to rebel. … The
   French army and the hope of liberty entered the unhappy city
   hand in hand [November 8, 1494]. … That night the Florentines
   in Pisa—men in office, judges, merchants, and soldiers of the
   garrison—were driven at the sword's point out of the
   rebellious city. … Twenty-four hours after the entry of the
   French, Pisa was a free republic, governed by a Gonfalonier,
   six Priors, and a Balia of Ten, with a new militia of its own,
   and, for the first time in eight and eighty years, a Pisan
   garrison in the ancient citadel." All this was done with the
   assent of the King of France and the promise of his
   protection. But when he passed on to Florence, and was faced
   there by the resolute Capponi, he signed a treaty in which he
   promised to give back Pisa to Florence when he returned from
   Naples. He returned from Naples the next summer (1495), hard
   pressed and retreating from his recent triumphs, and halted
   with his army at Pisa. There the tears and distress of the
   friendly Pisans moved even his soldiers to cry out in
   protestation against the surrender of the city to its former
   bondage. Charles compromised by a new treaty with the
   Florentines, again agreeing to deliver Pisa to them, but
   stipulating that they should place their old rivals on equal
   terms with themselves, in commerce and in civil rights. But
   Entragues, the French governor whom Charles had left in
   command at Pisa, with a small garrison, refused to carry out
   the treaty. He assisted the Pisans in expelling a force with
   which the Duke of Milan attempted to secure the city, and
   then, on the 1st of January, 1496, he delivered the citadel
   which he held into the hands of the Pisan signory. "During
   thirteen years from this date the shifting fortunes, the
   greeds and jealousies of the great Italian cities, fostered an
   artificial liberty in Pisa. Thrown like a ball from Milan to
   Venice, Venice to Maximilian, Max again to Venice, and thence
   to Cæsar Borgia, the unhappy Republic described the whole
   circle of desperate hope, agonized courage, misery, poverty,
   cunning, and betrayal."

      _A. M. F. Robinson,
      The End of the Middle Ages: The French at Pisa._

   In 1509 the Pisans, reduced to the last extremity by the
   obstinate siege which the Florentines had maintained, and sold
   by the French and Spaniards, who took pay from Florence (see
   VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509) for abandoning their cause, opened
   their gates to the Florentine army.

      _H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 8, chapter 6 and book 9, chapters 1-10._

PISA: A. D. 1512.
   The attempted convocation of a Council by Louis XII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------PISA: End--------

PISISTRATIDÆ, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

PISTICS.

      See GNOSTICS.

PIT RIVER INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

PITHECUSA.

   The ancient name of the island of Ischia.

PITHOM, the store city.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
   The administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763;
      and 1765-1768.

PITT, William (Lord Chatham).
   The American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

PITT, William (the Younger).
   The Administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787, to 1801-1806.

PITTI PALACE, The building of the.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1458-1469.

PITTSBURG LANDING, OR SHILOH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

{2540}

   ----------PITTSBURGH: Start--------

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1754.
   Fort Duquesne built by the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1758.
   Fort Duquesne abandoned by the French, occupied by the
   English, and named in honor of Pitt.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1763.
   Siege of Fort Pitt by the Indians.
   Bouquet's relieving expedition.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

PITTSBURGH: A. D. 1794.
   The Whiskey Insurrection.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

   ----------PITTSBURGH: End--------

PIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1458-1464.

   Pius III., Pope, 1503, September to October.

   Pius IV., Pope, 1559-1565.

   Pius V., Pope, 1566-1572.

   Pius VI., Pope, 1775-1799.

   Pius VII., Pope, 1800-1823.

   Pius VIII., Pope, 1829-1830.

   Pius IX., Pope, 1846-1878.

PIUTES, PAH UTES, &c.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

PIZARRO, Francisco: Discovery and conquest of Peru.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
      and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

PLACARDS OF CHARLES V., The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.

   ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACENTIA (modern Piacenza):
   The Roman colony.
   Its capture by the Gauls.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

PLACENTIA: B. C. 49.
   Mutiny of Cæsar's Legions.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 270.
   Defeat of the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

PLACENTIA: 14th Century.
   Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1513.
   Conquest by Pope Julius II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1515.
   Restored to the duchy of Milan,
   and with it to the king of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1521.
   Retaken by the Pope.
      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1545-1592.
   Union with Parma in the duchy created for the House of Farnese.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1725.
   Reversion of the duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1735.
   Restored to Austria.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1746.
   Given up by the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1805.
   The duchy declared a dependency of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

PLACENTIA: A. D. 1814.
   The duchy conferred on Marie Louise,
   the ex-empress of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL).

   ----------PLACENTIA: Start--------

PLACILLA, Battle of (1891).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

PLACITUM.
PLAID.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

   ----------PLAGUE: Start--------

PLAGUE.
PESTILENCE.
EPIDEMICS:

PLAGUE: B. C. 466-463. At Rome.

         See ROME: B. C. 466-463.

PLAGUE: B. C. 431-429. At Athens.

         See ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

PLAGUE: B. C. 405-375.
   Among the Carthaginians.

   "Within the space of less than thirty years [from B. C. 405]
   we read of four distinct epidemic distempers, each of
   frightful severity, as having afflicted Carthage and her
   armies in Sicily, without touching either Syracuse or the
   Sicilian Greeks. Such epidemics were the most irresistible of
   all enemies to the Carthaginians. … Upon what physical
   conditions the frequent repetition of such a calamity
   depended, together with the remarkable fact that it was
   confined to Carthage and her armies—we know partially in
   respect to the third of the four cases [when it was
   attributable in some degree to the situation of the
   Carthaginian camp on low, marshy ground, at a season when hot
   days alternated with chill nights] but not at all in regard to
   the others."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

PLAGUE: A. D. 78-266.
   Plague after the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii.
   Plagues of Orosius, Antoninus, and Cyprian.

   "On the cessation of the eruption of Vesuvius, which began on
   the 23d of August, A. D. 78, and which buried Herculaneum,
   Stabiæ and Pompeii in ashes, there arose … a destructive
   plague, which for many days in succession slew 10,000 men
   daily." The plague of Orosius (so called because Orosius, who
   wrote in the 5th century, described it most fully) began in
   the year A. D. 125. It was attributed to immense masses of
   grasshoppers which were swept by the winds, that year, from
   Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, and which were cast back by
   the waves to putrefy in heaps on the shore. "'In Numidia,
   where at that time Micipsa was king, 800,000 men perished,
   while in the region which lies most contiguous to the
   sea-shore of Carthage and Utica, more than 200,000 are said to
   have been cut down. In the city of Utica itself, 80,000
   soldiers, who had been ordered here for the defence of all
   Africa, were destroyed.' … The plague of Antoninus (A. D.
   164-180) visited the whole Roman Empire, from its most eastern
   to its extreme western boundaries, beginning at the former,
   and spreading thence by means of the troops who returned from
   putting down a rebellion in Syria. In the year 166 it broke
   out for the first time in Rome, and returned again in the year
   168. … The plague depopulated entire cities and districts, so
   that forests sprung up in places before inhabited. … In its
   last year it appears to have raged again with especial fury,
   so that in Rome … 2,000 men often died in a single day. With
   regard to the character of this plague, it has been considered
   sometimes smallpox, sometimes petechial typhus, and again the
   bubo-plague. The third so-called plague, that of Cyprian,
   raged about A. D. 251-266. … For a long time 500 died a day in
   Rome. … After its disappearance Italy was almost deserted. …
   It has been assumed that this plague should be considered
   either a true bubo-plague, or smallpox."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 189-190._

   "Niebuhr has expressed the opinion that 'the ancient world
   never recovered from the blow inflicted upon it by the plague
   which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.'"

      _O. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 68, footnote._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapter 4._

{2541}

PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
   During the reign of Justinian.

   "The fatal disease which depopulated the earth in the time of
   Justinian and his successors first appeared in the
   neighbourhood of Pelusium, between the Serbonian bog and the
   eastern channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing as it were a
   double path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and
   the Indies, and penetrated to the west, along the coast of
   Africa, and over the continent of Europe. In the spring of the
   second year, Constantinople, during three or four months, was
   visited by the pestilence; and Procopius, who observed its
   progress and symptoms with the eyes of a physician, has
   emulated the skill and diligence of Thucydides in the
   description of the plague of Athens. … The fever was often
   accompanied with lethargy or delirium; the bodies of the sick
   were covered with black pustules or carbuncles, the symptoms
   of immediate death; and in the constitutions too feeble to
   produce an eruption, the vomiting of blood was followed by a
   mortification of the bowels. … Youth was the most perilous
   season; and the female sex was less susceptible than the male.
   … It was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two
   years [A. D. 542-594] that mankind recovered their health, or
   the air resumed its pure and salubrious quality. … During
   three months, five and at length ten thousand persons died
   each day at Constantinople; … many cities of the east were
   left vacant; … in several districts of Italy the harvest and
   the vintage withered on the ground. The triple scourge of war,
   pestilence, and famine, afflicted the subjects of Justinian;
   and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease of the human
   species, which has never been repaired in some of the fairest
   countries of the globe."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 43._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 17._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

PLAGUE: 6-13th Centuries.
   Spread of Small-pox.

   "Nothing is known of the origin of small-pox; but it appears
   to have come originally from the East, and to have been known
   in China and Hindostan from time immemorial. … 'It seems to
   have reached Constantinople by way of Egypt about the year
   569.' From Constantinople it spread gradually over the whole
   of Europe, reaching England about the middle of the 13th
   century."

      _R. Rollo,
      Epidemics, Plagues, and Fevers,
      page 271._

PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.
   The world-wide pestilence.

   "One great calamity in the age of Constantine [the Byzantine
   emperor Constantine V., called Copronymus], appears to have
   travelled over the whole habitable world; this was the great
   pestilence, which made its appearance in the Byzantine empire
   as early as 745. It had previously carried off a considerable
   portion of the population of Syria, and the Caliph Yezid III.
   perished of the disease in 744. From Syria it visited Egypt
   and Africa, from whence it passed into Sicily. After making
   great ravages in Sicily and Calabria, it spread to Greece; and
   at last, in the year 747, it broke out with terrible violence
   in Constantinople, then probably the most populous city in the
   universe. It was supposed to have been introduced, and
   dispersed through Christian countries, by the Venetian and
   Greek ships employed in carrying on a contraband trade in
   slaves with the Mohammedan nations, and it spread wherever
   commerce extended. … This plague threatened to exterminate the
   Hellenic race." After it had disappeared, at the end of a
   year, "the capital required an immense influx of new
   inhabitants. To fill up the void caused by the scourge,
   Constantine induced many Greek families from the continent and
   the islands to emigrate to Constantinople."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 3._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1348-1351.
   The Black Death.

      See BLACK DEATH;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349.

PLAGUE: A. D. 1360-1363.
   The Children's Plague.

   "The peace of Bretigni [England and France, A. D. 1360], like
   the capture of Calais, was followed by a pestilence that
   turned the national rejoicings into mourning. But the
   'Children's Plague,' as it was called, from the fact that it
   was most deadly to the young, was fortunately not a return of
   the Black Death, and did not approach it in its effects. It
   numbered, however, three prelates and the Duke of Lancaster
   among its victims, and caused such anxiety in London that the
   courts of law were adjourned from May to October. France felt
   the scourge more severely. It ravaged the country for three
   years, and was especially fatal at Paris and at Avignon. In
   Ireland, where the pestilence lingered on into the next year,
   and proved very deadly, it was mistaken for scrofula, a
   circumstance which probably shows that it attacked the glands
   and the throat."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the 14th Century,
      chapter 7._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1374.
   The Dancing Mania.

   "The effects of the Black Death had not yet subsided, and the
   graves of millions of its victims were scarcely closed, when a
   strange delusion arose in Germany. … It was a convulsion which
   in the most extraordinary manner infuriated the human frame,
   and excited the astonishment of contemporaries for more than
   two centuries, since which time it has never reappeared. It
   was called the dance of St. John or of St. Vitus, on account
   of the Bacchantic leaps by which it was characterized, and
   which gave to those affected, whilst performing their wild
   dance, and screaming and foaming with fury, all the appearance
   of persons possessed. It did not remain confined to particular
   localities, but was propagated by the sight of the sufferers,
   like a demoniacal epidemic, over the whole of Germany and the
   neighbouring countries to the north-west, which were already
   prepared for its reception by the prevailing opinions of the
   times. So early as the year 1374, assemblages of men and women
   were seen at Aix-la–Chapelle who had come out of Germany, and
   who, united by one common delusion, exhibited to the public
   both in the streets and in the churches the following strange
   spectacle. They formed circles hand in hand, and appearing to
   have lost all control over their senses, continued dancing,
   regardless of the by-standers, for hours together in wild
   delirium, until at length they fell to the ground in a state
   of exhaustion. They then complained of extreme oppression, and
   groaned as if in the agonies of death, until they were swathed
   in cloths, bound tightly round their waists, upon which they
   again recovered, and remained free from complaint until the
   next attack. This practice of swathing was resorted to on
   account of the tympany which followed these spasmodic ravings,
   but the by-standers frequently relieved patients in a less
   artificial manner, by thumping and trampling upon the parts
   affected.
{2542}
   While dancing they neither saw nor heard, being insensible to
   external impressions through the senses, but were haunted by
   visions, their fancies conjuring up spirits whose names they
   shrieked out; and some of them afterwards asserted that they
   felt as if they had been immersed in a stream of blood, which
   obliged them to leap so high. … Where the disease was
   completely developed, the attack commenced with epileptic
   convulsions. Those affected fell to the ground senseless,
   panting and labouring for breath. They foamed at the mouth,
   and suddenly springing up began their dance amidst strange
   contortions. Yet the malady doubtless made its appearance very
   variously, and was modified by temporary or local
   circumstances. … It was but a few months ere this demoniacal
   disease had spread from Aix-Ia-Chapelle, where it appeared in
   July, over the neighbouring Netherlands. In Liege, Utrecht,
   Tongres, and many other towns of Belgium, the dancers appeared
   with garlands in their hair, and their waists girt with
   cloths, that they might, as soon as the paroxysm was over,
   receive immediate relief on the attack of the tympany. This
   bandage was, by the insertion of a stick, easily twisted
   tight: many, however, obtained more relief from kicks and
   blows, which they found numbers of persons ready to
   administer. … A few months after this dancing malady had made
   its appearance at Aix-la-Chapelle, it broke out at Cologne,
   where the number of those possessed amounted to more than five
   hundred, and about the same time at Metz, the streets of which
   place are said to have been filled with eleven hundred
   dancers. Peasants left their ploughs, mechanics their
   workshops, housewives their domestic duties, to join the wild
   revels, and this rich commercial city became the scene of the
   most ruinous disorder. … The dancing mania of the year 1374
   was, in fact, no new disease, but a phenomenon well known in
   the middle ages, of which many wondrous stories were
   traditionally current among the people."

      _J. F. C. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages: The Dancing Mania,
      chapter 1._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1485-1593.
   The Sweating Sickness in England.
   Plague, Small-pox and Grippe in Europe.

   "For centuries no infection had visited England, which in
   fearful rapidity and malignancy could be compared with the
   'sudor Anglicus,' as it was at first called, from the notion
   that its attacks were confined to Englishmen. People sitting
   at dinner, in the full enjoyment of health and spirits, were
   seized with it and died before the next morning. An open
   window, accidental contact in the streets, children playing
   before the door, a beggar knocking at the rich man's gate,
   might disseminate the infection, and a whole family would be
   decimated in a few hours without hope or remedy. Houses and
   villages were deserted. … Dr. Caius, a physician who had
   studied the disease under its various aspects, gives the
   following account of its appearance: 'In the year of our Lord
   God 1485, shortly after the 7th day of August, at which time
   King Henry VII. arrived at Milford in Wales out of France, and
   in the first year of his reign, there chanced a disease among
   the people lasting the rest of that month and all September,
   which for the sudden sharpness and unwont cruelness passed the
   pestilence. For this commonly giveth in four, often seven,
   sometime nine, sometime eleven and sometime fourteen days,
   respite to whom it vexeth. But that immediately killed some in
   opening their windows, some in playing with children in their
   street doors, some in one hour, many in two, it destroyed. …
   This disease, because it most did stand in sweating from the
   beginning until the ending, was called here The Sweating
   Sickness; and because it first began in England, it was named
   in other countries The English Sweat.' From the same authority
   we learn that it appeared in 1506, again in 1517 from July to
   the middle of December, then in 1528. It commenced with a
   fever, followed by strong internal struggles of nature,
   causing sweat. … It was attended with sharp pains in the back,
   shoulders and extremities, and then attacked the liver. … It
   never entered Scotland. In Calais, Antwerp and Brabant it
   generally singled out English residents and visitors. … In
   consequence of the peculiarity of the disease in thus singling
   out Englishmen, and those of a richer diet and more sanguine
   temperament, various speculations were set afloat as to its
   origin and its best mode of cure. Erasmus attributed it to bad
   houses and bad ventilation, to the clay floors, the unchanged
   and festering rushes with which the rooms were strewn, and the
   putrid offal, bones and filth which reeked and rotted together
   in the unswept and unwashed dining halls and chambers."

      _J. S. Brewer,
      Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

      See, also, SWEATING SICKNESS.

   "In the middle of the 16th century the English sweating
   sickness disappeared from the list of epidemic diseases. On
   the other hand, the plague, during the whole 16th century,
   prevailed more generally, and in places more fatally, than
   ever before. … In 1500-1507 it raged in Germany, Italy, and
   Holland, in 1528 in Upper Italy, 1534 in Southern France,
   1562-1568 pretty generally throughout Europe. … The disease
   prevailed again in 1591. It is characteristic of the
   improvement in the art of observation of this century that the
   plague was declared contagious and portable, and accordingly
   measures of isolation and disinfection were put in force
   against it, though without proving in any degree effectual.
   With a view to disinfection, horn, gunpowder, arsenic with
   sulphur or straw moistened with wine, etc., were burned in the
   streets. … Small-pox (first observed or described in Germany
   in 1493) and measles, whose specific nature was still unknown
   to the physicians of the West, likewise appeared in the 16th
   century. … The Grippe (influenza), for the first time
   recognizable with certainty as such, showed itself in the year
   1510, and spread over all Europe. A second epidemic, beginning
   in 1557, was less widely extended. On the other hand, in 1580
   and 1593 it became again pandemic, while in 1591 Germany alone
   was visited."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 438-439._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Hecker,
      Epidemics of the Middle Ages._

PLAGUE: A. D. 1665.
   In London.

      See LONDON: A. D. 1665.

{2543}

PLAGUE: 18th Century.
   The more serious epidemics.

   "The bubo–plague, 'the disease of barbarism' and especially of
   declining nations, in the 18th century still often reached the
   north of Europe, though it maintained its chief focus and
   head-quarters in the south-west [south-east?]. Thus from 1703
   forward, as the result of the Russo-Swedish war, it spread
   from Turkey to Sweden, Denmark, Poland and Prussia, so that in
   1709, the coldest year of the 18th century, more than 300,000
   human beings died in East Prussia in spite of the intense
   cold, and in Dantzic alone more than 30,000. Obliquing to the
   west, the plague reached Styria and Bohemia, and was carried
   by a ship to Regensburg in 1714, but by means of strict
   quarantine regulations was prevented from spreading to the
   rest of Germany. A hurricane swept the disease, as it were,
   out of all Europe. Yet six years later it appeared anew with
   devastating force in southern France" and was recurrent at
   intervals, in different parts of the continent, throughout the
   century. "Epidemics of typhus fever … showed themselves at the
   beginning of the century in small numbers, but disappeared
   before the plague. … The first description of typhoid
   fever—under the designation of 'Schleimfieber' (morbus
   mucosus)—appeared in the 18th century. … Malaria in the last
   century still gave rise to great epidemics. Of course all the
   conditions of life favored its prevalence. … La Grippe
   (influenza) appeared as a pandemic throughout almost all
   Europe in the years 1709, 1729, 1732, 1742, and 1788; in
   almost all America in 1732, 1737, 1751, 1772, 1781, and 1798;
   throughout the eastern hemisphere in 1781, and in the entire
   western hemisphere in 1761 and 1789; throughout Europe and
   America in 1767. It prevailed as an epidemic in France in the
   years 1737, 1775, and 1779; in England in 1758 and 1775, and
   in Germany in 1800. … Diphtheria, which in the 17th century
   had showed itself almost exclusively in Spain and Italy, was
   observed during the 18th in all parts of the world. …
   Small-pox had attained general diffusion. … Scarlet fever,
   first observed in the 17th century, had already gained wide
   diffusion. … Yellow fever, first recognized in the 16th
   century, and mentioned occasionally in the 17th, appeared with
   great frequency in the 18th century, but was mostly confined,
   as at a later period, to America."

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 727-730._

PLAGUE: 19th Century.
   The visitations of Asiatic Cholera.

   Cholera "has its origin in Asia, where its ravages are as
   great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or
   permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads
   every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the
   beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six
   successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak
   of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay
   Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to
   Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow
   (1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and
   England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first
   appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera
   pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through
   Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until
   October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was
   less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from
   November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics,
   1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."

      _E. L. Trouessart,
      Microbes, Ferments and Moulds,
      chapter 5, section 8._

   A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892.
   Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through
   Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the
   Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the
   epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and
   was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it
   was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits.
   Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the
   harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures
   of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Macnamara,
      History of Asiatic Cholera._

      _A. Stillé,
      Cholera,
      pages 15-31._

   ----------PLAGUE: End--------

PLAID.
PLACITUM.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

      See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.

PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

PLANTAGENETS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189;
      and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.

PLASSEY, Battle of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757.

   ----------PLATÆA: Start--------

PLATÆA.

   Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient
   Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the
   latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This
   provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and
   Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the
   Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 31._

PLATÆA: B. C. 490.
   Help to Athens at Marathon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 490.

PLATÆA: B. C. 479.
   Decisive overthrow of the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479.

PLATÆA: B. C. 431.
   Surprise of.

   The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the
   surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in
   Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly
   enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night
   and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the
   Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon
   the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427.
   Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

PLATÆA: B. C. 335.
   Restoration by Alexander.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

   ----------PLATÆA: End--------

PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.

      See ACADEMY;
      also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.

PLATTSBURG, Battle of.

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

PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.

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

   ----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------

{2544}

PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.

   "We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct
   body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of
   the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and
   after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,'
   cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both
   within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong
   to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor
   did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor,
   for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary
   limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an
   ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the
   orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three
   sources of this multitude:

    I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its
    boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest
    it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a
    canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its
    inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages
    as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either
    case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and
    refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the
    condition of slaves, were attached to the state as
    non-citizens.

   II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient
   times, could be entered into between individuals with their
   families and descendants, and also between individuals and a
   state, or between two states. Provision for such
   guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which
   bound together Rome on the one side and the various
   independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The
   commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in
   the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in
   the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without
   acquiring Roman citizenship.

   III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by
   the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In
   the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and
   plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with
   the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened
   their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a
   body, identified with the plebeians."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 3._

   Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians
   were forced to content themselves with the privilege they
   enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of
   their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the
   patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they
   struggled with success for a share in the government and for
   other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power
   passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution
   became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy
   and revolution, giving way to imperialism.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 7, 8, 10, 35._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 2._

PLEBEIANS:
   Secessions of the Plebs.

      See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

   ----------PLEBEIANS: End--------

PLEBISCITA.

   Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia
   Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

   In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a
   general vote of the people, taken upon some single question,
   like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852;
      also, REFERENDUM.

PLESWITZ, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

PLOW PATENT, The.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.

PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.

      See NEW ALBION.

PLUVIÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.
   Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.
   Landing of the Pilgrims.
   Founding of the Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864.
   Capture and recapture.

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

   ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------

PLYMOUTH COMPANY:
   Formation.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607;
      and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.
   Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620.
   Merged in the Council for New England.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

   ----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------

PLYMOUTH ROCK.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

PNYX, The.

   "The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people
   in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in
   the market; in the historical period the people met there only
   to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling
   in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter,
   a point which quite recently has become a matter of
   considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient
   authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with
   certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and
   that of the streets running out of the market one led only
   into the Pnyx."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

   "The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side
   of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the
   west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient
   enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only
   from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the
   radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while
   the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was
   about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the
   platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about
   sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is
   composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most
   part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was
   bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the
   parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.
{2545}
   The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the
   sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform
   sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously
   the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or
   sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose
   the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It
   was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,
   rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its
   present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of
   the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a
   flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an
   inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,
   which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the
   Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of
   containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing
   a square yard to each."

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      appendix 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      The Assemblies of the Athenians,
      pages 48-51._

      See, also, AGORA.

POCKET BOROUGHS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

PODESTAS.

   "About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species
   of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During
   the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had
   appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the
   elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of
   despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and
   disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they
   almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an
   office which had been abrogated when they first rose in
   rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must
   presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions
   carried into the administration of justice, it became a
   general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen
   of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal
   judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes
   chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of
   citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar
   emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in
   those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share
   in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was
   compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his
   office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be
   adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native
   of the city, nor have any relation resident within the
   district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink
   in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign
   magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some
   he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the
   armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority
   was merely judicial."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 69._

PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.

POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

POISSY, The Colloquy at.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

POITIERS:
   Original names.

   Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of
   Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.

POITIERS:A. D. 1569.
   Siege by the Huguenots.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

POITIERS, Battle of.

   A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of
   Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince,"
   the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded
   personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers
   was on the side of the French, but the position of the English
   was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to
   the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The
   English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of
   that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was
   taken prisoner.

      _Froissart,
      Chronicles,
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 157-166._

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

POITIERS, Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

POITOU:
   Origin of the name.

      See PICTONES.

POITOU:
   The rise of the Counts.

      See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.

POITOU:
   The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

POKANOKETS,
WAMPANOAGS, The.

     See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
     AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
     NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

POLA, Naval battle of (1379).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

   ----------POLAND: Start--------

POLAND.
   The Name.

   "The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems
   to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as
   to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue
   signifying a level field or plain."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      introduction._

POLAND:
   The ancestors of the race.

      See LYGIANS.

POLAND:
   Beginnings of national existence.

   "The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history
   before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to
   Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this
   people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or
   prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,
   embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,
   Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly
   after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was
   founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame
   the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long
   time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their
   government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the
   great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.
{2546}
   The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled
   most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they
   acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German
   emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,
   asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful
   war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,
   took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the
   death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of
   Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.
   afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite
   of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the
   royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having
   cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the
   Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and
   also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested
   from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.
   reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).
   This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or
   Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its
   founder."

      _W. Koch,
      History of Revolutions in Europe,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      chapters 1-2._

POLAND: A. D. 1096.
   The refuge of the Jews.

      See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.

POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241.
   Mongol invasion.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.
   Growing power and increasing dominion.
   Encroachments on Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
   The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.
   Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.

   Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of
   the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish
   historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the
   internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal
   code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning,
   and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and
   hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that
   of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of
   Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic
   provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country,
   had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than
   with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition
   connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of
   the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule
   at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously
   shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the
   advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy
   between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at
   length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no
   issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland
   passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

   Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those
   of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the
   Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles;
   and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of
   Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess
   and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be
   baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto
   heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a
   new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of
   the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven
   successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch
   of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look
   fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of
   their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and
   Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who
   on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one
   fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of
   the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign
   (1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to
   account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then
   moving westward before the impulse of the conquering
   Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic
   Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights,
   which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg
   in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken
   for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the
   Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the
   Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and
   that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with
   the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then
   beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having
   been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic
   Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to
   try to recover their power. By this time, however, their
   Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing,
   Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and
   the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them;
   and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the
   Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia
   revolted from the knights and placed itself under his
   protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a
   close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty,
   the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the
   countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the
   whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and
   other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with
   guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of
   administration; and the knights being allowed to retain
   certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of
   Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that
   necessity of its existence as a great European state—a
   seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which
   they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced
   with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them
   their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in
   Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of
   his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander
   (1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in
   the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn
   were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the
   Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic
   Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to
   Poland.
{2547}
   The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a
   singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at
   this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the
   Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in
   1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg.
   Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding
   grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of
   his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to
   win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn.
   Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and
   proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of
   the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best
   policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The
   Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over
   the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a
   practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight
   support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new
   doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master
   himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of
   Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of
   the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular
   principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or
   were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and
   they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together,
   with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred
   their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained,
   a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization
   was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a
   square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with
   the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one,
   and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund
   received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by
   and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced
   the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and
   the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular
   vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's
   reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland
   more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh
   of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the
   wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy
   in the matter of the great religious controversy then
   agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost
   nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its
   last transactions was the consummation of the union between
   the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal
   incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1,
   1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ
   was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered
   on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences
   of which her name is now associated."

      _Poland: her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great,
      chapter 4._

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 1, chapter 3._

POLAND: A. D. 1439.
   Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479.
   War with Matthias of Hungary.

   See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588.
   Enslavement of the peasantry.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.

POLAND: A. D. 1573.
   Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.
   The Pacta Conventa.

   On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the
   Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required
   to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta
   Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which
   were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between
   the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of
   the Pacta Conventa were the following:

   "1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to
   influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should
   leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing
   one at his decease.

   2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir'
   of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.

   3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the
   dissidents.

   4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on
   any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.

   5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any
   description.

   6. That he should not have any authority to appoint
   ambassadors to foreign courts.

   7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the
   senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance
   with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.

   8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the
   members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines,
   and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and
   should be selected by the ordinary diets.

   9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or
   oftener, if required.

   10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six
   weeks.

   11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on
   other than natives.

   12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife
   without the permission of the diet.

   The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit,
   was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their
   oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another
   ruler."

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 2, chapter 1._

POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
   Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.
   Election of Stephen Batory.
   His successful wars with Russia, and his death.
   Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.

   The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles
   had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow,
   on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of
   the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was
   constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his
   imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their
   factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut
   himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen
   whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he
   abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death
   of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the
   30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the
   Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which
   announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have
   any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however,
   transpired through another channel.
{2548}
   His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity
   with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while
   he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission
   would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still
   had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the
   ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly
   aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it.
   He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and
   achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it
   out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night
   of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his
   apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure
   by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet
   he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet
   assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not
   return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared
   vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. …
   After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was
   proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a
   new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry
   III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native
   princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter,
   however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic,
   wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the
   honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the
   bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an
   Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet
   (assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the
   princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they
   resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania.
   Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost
   of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of
   Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the
   emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the
   crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with
   the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers
   to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with
   still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about
   certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on
   Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess,
   subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly
   crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of
   Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland
   and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which
   had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less
   tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to
   submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only
   refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the
   diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers
   sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had
   they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might
   have beheld the power of their king shattered against the
   bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them
   pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear;
   the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter
   of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate
   success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of
   extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed
   his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other
   enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious
   subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish
   their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they
   had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was
   now his object. … Success every where accompanied him.
   Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to
   his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the
   Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he
   conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of
   winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the
   ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the
   different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the
   reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes
   procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they
   caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish
   nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to
   the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they
   apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a
   ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other
   leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most
   jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course
   towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable
   marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been
   untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could
   stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with
   amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between
   Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops
   were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were
   peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of
   health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding
   campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by
   adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with
   the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for
   peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready
   to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous
   to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which
   she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an
   acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and
   Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to
   Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised
   the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of
   the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity
   for a fierce private war between the factions of the
   Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed
   election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke
   Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of
   Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides
   resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner,
   and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to
   the Polish crown.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      book 2, chapter 1._

{2549}

POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
   Anarchy organized by the Nobles.
   The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.
   The Liberum Veto and its effects.

   "On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when
   Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing
   their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its
   monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most
   comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually
   deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the
   administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the
   last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the
   kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility,
   which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the
   legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As
   soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and
   before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the
   provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the
   late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of
   could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became
   law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity
   was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual
   or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king
   had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent
   circumstances did not justify his acting without the
   co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops
   and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were
   governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who
   were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses,
   but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of
   the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making
   peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a
   matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account,
   by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the
   assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit
   were the only means of influence that could be employed by a
   king, who was excluded from the administration, who was
   without domains, without private property or settled revenue,
   who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by
   judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without
   real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its
   power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the
   highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and
   the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of
   the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from
   taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the
   republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which,
   dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This
   gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies
   of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who
   represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire
   unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no
   discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the
   demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they
   were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of
   votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely
   organized. This step was taken when individual palatines
   enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the
   diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to.
   Before long, several deputies received the same instructions,
   and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened.
   Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those
   of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of
   one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the
   dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal
   authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet
   could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a
   fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could
   be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received
   no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to
   their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in
   short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a
   state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was
   looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was
   invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his
   family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these
   deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing,
   and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by
   the nation."

      _Count Moltke,
      Poland: an Historical Sketch,
      chapter 3._

   "It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or
   the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged
   class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its
   last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir
   having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was
   bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him,
   and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a
   war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the
   Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum
   veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history,
   and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of
   a political institution, with which the records of any nation
   present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a
   conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of
   Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole
   legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a
   dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the
   exercise of the power was a different thing from its
   possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve
   enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various
   remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most
   obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and
   throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his
   back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into
   unanimity. There was also the device of what were called
   confederations; that is, associations of the nobles
   independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of
   the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These
   confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the
   intervals between the Diets."

      _Poland: her History and Prospects
      (Westminster Review, January, 1855)._

POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.
   Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.
   His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.
   His claims and the consequent war.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604;
      and 1611-1629.

{2550}

POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
   Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.
   Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.
   Domestic discord in the kingdom.

   "The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory
   of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of
   Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at
   that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of
   government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the
   Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby
   lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown
   of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the
   rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle
   Charles, the brother of the late king.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.

   This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between
   Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill
   by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz,
   terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a
   part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During
   the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the
   death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and
   sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and
   remained in occupation of it for some time.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

   "As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the
   Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on
   condition that he would change his religion and become a
   member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a
   zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits,
   wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic
   Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused
   the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded
   at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable
   part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. …
   Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept
   up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor
   invited him to take part with him … in what is historically
   termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this
   request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack
   regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in
   'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with
   Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had
   afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable
   force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against
   the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that
   of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora
   [1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his
   soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign …
   the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident
   in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the
   frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the
   entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in
   all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a
   'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible
   Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be
   organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded
   Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester
   with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the
   walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or
   Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his
   appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and,
   notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks
   were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield,
   besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this
   brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I
   think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the
   whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. …
   The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive
   his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place
   in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had
   succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern
   province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to
   resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took
   possession of this Polish province.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

   Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland
   on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to
   the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the
   rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones,
   the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same
   disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not
   accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his
   refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the
   exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in
   1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately
   elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom
   all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after
   the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the
   important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other
   territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was
   concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of
   England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and
   Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part
   of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of
   Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external
   matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were
   incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil
   the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in
   1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had
   entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had
   been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved
   from his vows and permitted to marry.

      _K. Wolski,
      Poland,
      lectures 11-12._

POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.
   Intervention in Russia.
   Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
   The great revolt of the Cossacks.
   Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.

   Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged
   allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and
   afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming
   united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long
   been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in
   the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally
   suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were
   ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of
   Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large
   extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and
   Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their
   violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.
{2551}
   It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of
   the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in
   this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been
   provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded
   in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,
   with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish
   authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king
   of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful
   Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.
   Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was
   offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration
   of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested
   Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin
   Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the
   Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.
   They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince
   Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the
   Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and
   defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed
   hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan
   again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of
   short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle
   of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated
   with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he
   had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,
   and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to
   transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the
   Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were
   concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,
   Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's
   commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to
   the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to
   have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the
   Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count H. Krasinski,
      The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
      chapter 1._

POLAND: A. D. 1652.
   First exercise of the Liberum Veto.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.
   Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.
   Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
   Abdication of John Casimir.
   War with the Turks.
   Election and reign of John Sobieski.

   "In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that
   of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and
   retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in
   1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its
   ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had
   been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this
   reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg
   [Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present
   Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John
   Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion,
   caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by
   intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful
   faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael
   Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election
   gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees;
   and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had
   not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies
   against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the
   south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these
   formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even
   when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable
   to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty
   was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of
   her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual
   tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious
   treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it;
   and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey
   once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment
   Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish
   diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name
   illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble
   family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the
   proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended
   from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that
   Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the
   commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who
   were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great
   victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite
   general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and
   from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern
   Europe. His fame increased during the six years which
   followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was
   created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the
   Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom;
   the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest
   military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before
   been held in conjunction by the same individual. These
   dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not
   be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though
   he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to
   resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne,
   Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his
   successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of
   the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671
   and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were
   almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in
   the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the
   terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have
   already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was
   concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When …
   Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of
   the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was
   unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not
   without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He
   laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong
   Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress
   was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the
   Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked
   God for the most signal success which, for three centuries,
   Christendom had gained over the Infidel.'
{2552}
   While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory,
   intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He
   had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army
   returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for
   the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met
   when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been
   with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting
   the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of
   Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg,
   who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish
   nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign
   influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate
   seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was
   engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his
   place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy
   discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a
   Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who
   further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The
   proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and
   Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of
   Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and
   immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding
   an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and
   increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment
   with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort;
   but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus
   appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier,
   and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force
   he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than
   10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking
   up his position in two small villages on the banks of the
   Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food
   and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out.
   Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within
   their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons
   and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the
   Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a
   musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their
   fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October
   1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their
   entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of
   victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange
   sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a
   thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight
   against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the
   fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching
   from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was
   accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years
   of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing
   his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the
   constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no
   means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in
   1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called
   him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of
   the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed
   with political and domestic annoyances.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

   … Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to
   which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented
   from employing itself with effect upon great national objects.
   He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and
   'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended
   to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland
   was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were
   James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the
   Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony.
   The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one
   half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by
   the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the
   electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the
   strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus
   entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the
   particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was
   Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally
   belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles,
   and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly
   a century, been in the possession of Sweden."

      _History of Poland
      (Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. T. Palmer,
      Life of John Sobieski._

POLAND: A. D. 1683.
   Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.

POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
   Disputed Election of a King.
   The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.

   On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward
   the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish
   throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united
   in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had
   just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope
   found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of
   the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The
   Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the
   Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he
   wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against
   the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit
   should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his
   candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of
   Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the
   necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play
   an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony,
   on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans
   and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the
   majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697;
   but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who
   hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland
   at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet
   that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till
   September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The
   prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had
   had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his
   resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti,
   abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the
   undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November.
   … In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as
   King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

{2553}

POLAND: A. D. 1699.
   The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

      See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.

POLAND: A. D. 1700.
   Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark
   against Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.
   Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Deposition of Augustus from the throne.
   Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

POLAND: A. D. 1709.
   Restoration of Augustus to the throne.
   Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.

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

POLAND: A. D. 1720.
   Peace with Sweden.
   Recognition of Augustus.
   Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
   The election to the throne a European question.
   France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.
   Triumph of the three powers.
   The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.

   "It became clear that before long a struggle would take place
   for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must
   interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for
   that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern
   powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which
   was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict
   it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France
   alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to
   place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her,
   should cherish French influences, and form a centre of
   resistance against the dominance of the northern powers.
   England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or
   exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia,
   Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by
   which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in
   Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and
   interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man
   of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the
   Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died:
   the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as
   ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps
   to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a
   native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned
   Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege
   of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704;
   with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell
   (1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at
   Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the
   throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the
   national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast
   majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian
   faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong
   armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of
   Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede
   Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by
   acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became
   inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to
   maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and
   Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective
   support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless
   King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in
   Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship
   and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried
   in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving
   vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee,
   found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland
   submitted to Augustus III."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
   The First Partition and the events which led to it.
   The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.

   "In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia.
   Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman;
   how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her
   rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent
   on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe.
   Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound,
   therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of
   Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince
   to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish
   nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and
   cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus
   Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she
   desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to
   ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in
   Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in
   Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort,
   deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne
   without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her
   reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She
   desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing
   more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than
   the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as
   it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had
   begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and
   partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights
   of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was
   addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of
   Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly
   Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to
   recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their
   ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to
   herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful
   enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was
   attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected
   at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would
   make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring
   of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in
   order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support
   for her diplomatic action.
{2554}
   The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts
   was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of
   Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had
   renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling
   towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came
   to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive
   reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia.
   That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but
   indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with
   Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the
   other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth
   of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might
   seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a
   moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left,
   and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was
   proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with
   certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election
   of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the
   Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the
   support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to
   prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who
   was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just
   as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of
   Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus
   III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above
   treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two
   Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at
   Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia
   would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety,
   however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg
   wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence
   over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did
   not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland
   for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his
   country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland
   proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was
   opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of
   the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that
   a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country,
   occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under
   the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was
   unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the
   Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having
   become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the
   constitution, to establish a regular administration, to
   strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of
   the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the
   Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their
   political opponents, together with that of all the religious
   Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the
   Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by
   a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily
   broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the
   Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried
   the measure through by force and the act embodying it was
   signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration
   arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country
   itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable
   dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and
   Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil
   rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a
   holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman
   Catholic population of every district joined the
   Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern
   provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage
   cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor
   property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When …
   the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of
   Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little
   town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the
   Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared
   war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in
   his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to
   Poland.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

   Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had
   become a European question of the first importance; and no one
   felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew
   Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the
   war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to
   herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave
   to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.
   … The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two
   hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central
   position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.
   Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this
   danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the
   outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to
   prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted
   to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to
   make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire
   whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if
   Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish
   province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an
   annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this
   scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a
   Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with
   no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in
   the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his
   mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that
   end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing
   proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a
   speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed
   allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories
   east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of
   Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition
   was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The
   Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,
   simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the
   Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the
   alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As
   soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was
   convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the
   provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to
   regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled
   since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.
{2555}
   It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold
   speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that
   the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount
   of donations and pensions which the individual senators and
   deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.
   Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The
   Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of
   the Sovereign, were continued."

      _H. von Sybel,
      The First Partition of Poland
      (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22)._

   "One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as
   everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the
   notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with
   eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second,
   what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand,
   it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due
   the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment.
   Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465
   English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500,
   between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which
   latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as
   filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen
   and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the
   most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is
   Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772,
   it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering
   confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of
   Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth
   little record."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great,
      book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter. 119 (volume 3)._

[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D.
SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.

HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA).
HABSBURG(AUSTRIA).
RUSSIAN.
POLISH.
TURKISH.
VENETIAN.
THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE
CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA.
AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER
LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]

[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797).
AUSTRIAN
PRUSSIAN
RUSSIAN
FRENCH
SWEDISH
DANISH
PAPAL STATES
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
   The reformed Constitution of 1791
   and its Russian strangulation.

   "After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776,
   that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy
   an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known
   for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The
   dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable.
   Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable
   portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the
   defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence
   of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new
   enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to
   counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes
   of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance
   with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs
   in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of
   Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from
   the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. …
   Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was
   favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia,
   became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden;
   and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the
   head of all the independent members of the Germanic
   Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the
   Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and
   revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had
   excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable
   combination against the power of Russia was in process of time
   formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte,
   concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting
   parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria
   the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had
   given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these
   auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the
   hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their
   institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and
   to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume
   their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to
   1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults
   disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress,
   and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility
   patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a
   productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to
   renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made
   perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been
   so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the
   Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to
   employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent
   symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at
   Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the
   republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been
   accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not
   been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery
   recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself
   with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State.
   They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no
   reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On
   the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been
   outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions,
   during most of the previous two years, was reported to the
   Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the
   election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united
   with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for
   the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was
   adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve
   dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free:
   these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither
   attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution
   "confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with
   religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion
   inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy
   in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the
   right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the
   extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in
   the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise.
   The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and
   the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient
   constitutional language and forms were preserved. The
   necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and,
   with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and
   Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary.
{2556}
   Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration
   of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the
   right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of
   the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open
   to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to
   the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial
   subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these
   deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of
   captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of
   magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land
   paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly
   unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown
   open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having
   thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded
   freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full
   protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the
   Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary
   manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice
   came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed
   in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January,
   1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and,
   being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more
   to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of
   Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with
   that very slender pretext with which she was always content.
   Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These
   unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at
   the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. …
   They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her
   to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792,
   they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the
   Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called
   on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against
   the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her
   guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties
   of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia,
   which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in
   March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of
   the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense
   army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the
   Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the
   Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions
   [especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of
   1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and
   Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal
   proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the
   4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would
   not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month …
   [he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz;
   and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the
   hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over
   whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute
   authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to
   lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland
   during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of
   Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the
   terms of a new Treaty of Partition.

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      Account of the Partition of Poland
      (Edinburgh Review, November, 1822;
      reprinted in Miscellaneous Works)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 2, chapters 1 and 6,
      book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2)._

      _A. Gielgud,
      The Centenary of the Polish Constitution
      (Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547)._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
   The Second and Third Partitions.
   Extinction of Polish nationality.

   "The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of
   partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The
   King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier
   [January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles
   of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that
   Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that
   Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues
   were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war
   with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins
   whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of
   the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the
   eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a
   line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,
   passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,
   Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia
   had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as
   Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If
   Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,
   Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and
   another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of
   the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced
   to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it
   was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that
   she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at
   Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by
   bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the
   desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who
   were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received
   orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to
   the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,
   Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American
   Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of
   1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,
   directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.
   "The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.
   Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to
   be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian
   Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this
   city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,
   rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to
   the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'
   in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was
   branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand
   scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of
   patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm
   people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,
   the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian
   troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and
   wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.
{2557}
   "A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent
   a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian
   armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered
   patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered
   Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to
   give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was
   beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner
   in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,
   under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of
   Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only
   one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an
   independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of
   partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of
   Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in
   execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as
   far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),
   and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and
   Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also
   annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally
   acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern
   Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and
   Chelm."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. N. Bain,
      The Second Partition of Poland
      (English Historical Review, April, 1801)._

      _H. von Sybel,
      History of the French Revolution,
      book 7, chapter 5,
      book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3);
      and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4)._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1806.
   False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.

   See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.

POLAND: A. D. 1807.
   Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,
   and given to the king of Saxony.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

POLAND: A. D. 1809.
   Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,
   by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1812.
   Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom,
   not encouraged by Napoleon.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.
   The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.
   Constitution granted by the Czar.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Rising against the Russian oppressor.
   Courageous struggle for independence.
   Early victories and final defeat.
   Barbarity of the conqueror.

   "Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the
   invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].
   The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period
   of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded
   in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake
   to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the
   West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave
   people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause
   of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and
   freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The
   statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the
   victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating
   the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,
   indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not
   lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with
   obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the
   Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass
   by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be
   governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.
   Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his
   brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at
   Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached
   Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a
   revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.
   Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The
   cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,
   drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who
   dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The
   cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.
   Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,
   under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every
   circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The
   Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:
   the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The
   Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the
   Poles without the consent of their representatives: for
   fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The
   Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:
   the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his
   pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative
   government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the
   part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which
   Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely
   lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young
   men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and
   forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just
   time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.
   … The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon
   spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the
   insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or
   ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the
   30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession
   of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served
   with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at
   their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his
   warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men
   whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred
   negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,
   failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having
   failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested
   Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam
   Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile
   Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was
   before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to
   a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the
   Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the
   east upon Warsaw.
{2558}
   The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses
   the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs
   down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central
   road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west
   upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland
   from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and
   proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided
   on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on
   the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he
   renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the
   village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of
   Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to
   claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the
   Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could
   declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and
   that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the
   attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation
   into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at
   Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved
   unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the
   command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of
   March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked
   the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of
   Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the
   night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a
   loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.
   Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the
   Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed
   forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is
   approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near
   the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia
   and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March
   the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The
   Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a
   succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the
   cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the
   gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.
   Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not
   destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by
   three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right
   on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct
   road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the
   attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the
   defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of
   doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross
   the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at
   Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might
   obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any
   possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch
   succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the
   destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the
   26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole
   Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish
   levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came
   they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of
   the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,
   was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian
   right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,
   resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were
   over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles
   had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying
   upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose
   two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,
   too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in
   the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly
   advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian
   army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie
   communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both
   armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of
   it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the
   cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,
   Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,
   succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the
   Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch
   was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an
   officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th
   of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and
   threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he
   advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he
   attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made
   their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in
   its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their
   mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall
   reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo
   had not created so much consternation in the French capital.
   Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of
   Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.
   … On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new
   organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the
   insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of
   1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the
   spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of
   the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying
   to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her
   national libraries and public collections removed; the
   children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers
   Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of
   participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior
   of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen
   on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and
   little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long
   journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those
   who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the
   Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that
   the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout
   Europe."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 16 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hordynski,
      History of the late Polish Revolution._

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 14._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-52,
      chapter 26._

POLAND: A. D. 1846.
   Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
   Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
   Its annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

{2559}

POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.
   The last insurrection.

   "In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all
   respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November
   of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
   revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a
   religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the
   25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of
   Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over
   by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of
   presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.
   Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by
   an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the
   kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal
   councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish
   language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.
   … On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front
   of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to
   disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons
   were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.
   The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in
   conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who
   was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,
   1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski
   Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being
   taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by
   the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two
   attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter
   of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was
   also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,
   a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to
   be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and
   forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number
   thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the
   insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a
   secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as
   mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.
   The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the
   bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military
   tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.
   Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with
   pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were
   chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower
   officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants
   who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a
   languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating
   to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which
   the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla
   fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns
   were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret
   emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called
   stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They
   succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves
   obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the
   chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or
   hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the
   viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By
   May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost
   Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;
   henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,
   must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and
   paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,
   England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently
   and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of
   Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a
   convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the
   insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she
   has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,
   carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a
   European scandal."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Poland,
      chapter 12._

POLAND: A. D. 1868.
   Complete incorporation with Russia.

   By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
   Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.

   ----------POLAND: End--------

POLAR STAR, The Order of the.

   A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of
   which is uncertain.

POLEMARCH.

      See GREECE: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

POLETÆ.
POLETERIUM.

   "Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;
   revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which
   is to be included also the property of public debtors, who
   were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies
   of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not
   paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who
   had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of
   the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with
   the making of contracts for the public works, at least in
   certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten
   poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other
   boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the
   members of this branch of the government, and their sessions
   were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
      book 2, chapter 3._

POLITIQUES, The Party of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

POLK, James K.:
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.

POLKOS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

POLLENTIA, Battle of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.

POLLICES.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

POLO, Marco, The travels of.

   "This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
   word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
   politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
   of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
   who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
   regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
   himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
   court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
   service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
   subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
   nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
   transmuting himself into a Tartar.
{2560}
   He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
   mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
   dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
   secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
   and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
   this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
   Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
   travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
   recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
   and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
   These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
   under the following circumstances. After a residence of
   seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
   accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
   return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
   committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
   he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
   fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
   This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
   publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
   the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
   rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
   romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
   of his observations, the long series of years they had
   occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
   and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
   combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
   Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
   time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
   of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
   of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
   as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
   directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
   Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
   fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
   matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
   account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
   route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
   chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
   successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
   Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
   throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
   homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
   those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
   no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
   the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
   as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
   down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
   judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
   attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
   to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
   and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
   Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
   Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
   The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
   Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
   washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
   by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
   potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
   in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
   fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
   Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
   Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
   Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
   favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
   despised."

      _E. J. Payne,
      History of the New World,
      book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Book of Ser Marco Polo;
      edited by Colonel H. Yule._

      _T. W. Knox,
      Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls._

      _G. M. Towle,
      Marco Polo._

      See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

POLONNA, Battle of (1792).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

POLYNESIANS, The.

      See MALAYAN RACE.

POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

POMERANIANS, The.

   "Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the
   Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being
   their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous
   with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and
   'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions
   are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor
   shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older
   Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the
   present moment. On the promontories which project into the
   Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or
   Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,
      section 7._

POMERIUM, The Roman.

   "The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of
   the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,
   over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be
   moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The
   pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the
   space between the wall and the foot of the hill."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 40._

POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

POMPÆ.

   The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they
   expended great sums of money, were so called.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 12._

POMPEII.

   "Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,
   the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin
   was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded
   by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which
   bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the
   warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek
   plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the
   Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of
   Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and
   though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,
   Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman
   colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the
   language of the settlers from beyond the sea."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 60._

{2561}

   Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were
   overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the
   23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not
   perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by
   excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been
   extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the
   very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age
   of Titus.

      _Pliny the Younger, Letters,
      book 6, epistles 16 and 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Dyer,
      Pompeii._

POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.

POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;
      and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

PONCAS,
PONKAS,
PUNCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

   ----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
   Founded by the French.
   Taken by the Dutch.
   Restored to France.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.
   Siege by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.
   Capture by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

   ----------PONDICHERRY: End--------

PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

PONKAS.

   See PONCAS.

PONS ÆLII.

   A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
   Newcastle is now situated.

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 8._

PONS SUBLICIUS, The.

      See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

PONT ACHIN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).

   "With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a
   military power from the continent, the English colonists were
   abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in
   the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity
   from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible
   that, with the loose system of organization and government
   common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
   campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.
   This feeling of security among the English settlements was of
   short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian
   tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and
   from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this
   disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made
   to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real
   causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and
   sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
   his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They
   came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him
   fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,
   self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt
   with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the
   average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting
   objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with
   justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little
   disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,
   when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large
   tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
   hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the
   native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by
   misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and
   making the prediction that the French would soon recapture
   Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.
   Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],
   was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity
   for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all
   these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish
   purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a
   time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under
   the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
   recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule
   over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.
   Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was
   indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous
   mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the
   Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English
   settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the
   English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the
   whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the
   Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The
   Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who
   joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the
   influence of Sir William Johnson.'

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      volume 1, page 187._

   … His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the
   Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was
   assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a
   small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near
   Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.
   On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,
   had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt
   would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,
   on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,
   with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at
   the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled
   at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme
   of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
   assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly
   defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a
   schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and
   ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,
   Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another
   trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy
   by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,
   having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,
   immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a
   party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
   wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.
{2562}
   Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the
   smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May
   16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May
   25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort
   Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort
   Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf
   (Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango
   County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle
   and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except
   that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of
   capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians
   came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were
   admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon
   the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At
   Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,
   when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison
   survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a
   large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on
   all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed
   next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid
   siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to
   themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in
   order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which
   was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for
   the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that
   there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully
   understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were
   coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a
   gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his
   youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional
   charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven
   years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than
   they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,
   the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the
   importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did
   good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
   expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and
   energy with which this duty was performed, under the most
   embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
   brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops
   available for the service were about 500 regulars recently
   arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy
   Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate
   battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of
   a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort
   Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit
   was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June
   had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a
   supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his
   arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a
   night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin
   discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,
   consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it
   to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place
   called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were
   killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell
   himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the
   fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere
   there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun
   to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of
   Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the
   winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties
   were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was
   recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his
   march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
   Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great
   lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with
   some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of
   August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance
   from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced
   great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not
   until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But
   before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and
   Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white
   captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in
   conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great
   council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing
   Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had
   concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the
   Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of
   Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British
   government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns
   were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and
   as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,
   where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and
   there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769
   he was assassinated, near St. Louis.

      _W. F. Poole,
      The West, 1763-1783
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac._

      _S. Farmer,
      History of Detroit and Michigan,
      chapter 38._

      _Historical Account of Bouquet's Expedition._

      _A. Henry,
      Travels and Adventures in Canada,
      part 1, chapters 9-23._

      _W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12._

      _J. R. Brodhead,
      Documents Relative to Colonial History New York,
      volume 7._

PONTIFEX MAXIMUS.
PONTIFICES, Roman.

      See AUGURS.

PONTIFF, The Roman.

   The Pope is often alluded to as the Roman Pontiff, the term
   implying an analogy between his office and that of the
   Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Romans.

PONTIFICAL INDICTIONS.

      See INDICTIONS.

PONTUS.

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

PONTUS EUXINUS,
EUXINUS PONTUS.

   The Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

PONZA, Naval Battle of (1435).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

POOR LAWS, The English.

   "It has been often said and often denied that the monasteries
   supplied the want which the poor law, two generations after
   the dissolution of these bodies, enforced. That the
   monasteries were renowned for their almsgiving is certain. The
   duty of aiding the needy was universal. Themselves the
   creatures of charity, they could not deny to others that on
   which they subsisted. …
{2563}
   It is possible that these institutions created the mendicancy
   which they relieved, but it cannot be doubted that they
   assisted much which needed their help. The guilds which
   existed in the towns were also found in the country villages.
   … They were convenient instruments for charity before the
   establishment of a poor law, and they employed no
   inconsiderable part of their revenues, collected from
   subscriptions and from lands and tenements, in relieving the
   indigent and treating poor strangers hospitably. … Before the
   dissolution of the monasteries, but when this issue was fairly
   in view, in 1536, an attempt was made to secure some legal
   provision for destitution. The Act of this year provides that
   the authorities in the cities and boroughs should collect alms
   on Sundays and holy days, that the ministers should on all
   occasions, public and private, stir up the people to
   contribute to a common fund, that the custom of giving doles
   by private persons should be forbidden under penalty, and that
   the church-wardens should distribute the alms when collected.
   The Act, however, is strictly limited to free gifts, and the
   obligations of monasteries, almshouses, hospitals, and
   brotherhoods are expressly maintained. … There was a
   considerable party in England which was willing enough to see
   the monasteries destroyed, root and branch, and one of the
   most obvious means by which this result could be attained
   would be to allege that all which could be needed for the
   relief of destitution would be derived from the voluntary
   offerings of those who contributed so handsomely to the
   maintenance of indolent and dissolute friars. The public was
   reconciled to the Dissolution by the promise made that the
   monastic estates should not be converted to the king's private
   use, but be devoted towards the maintenance of a military
   force, and that therefore no more demands should be made on
   the nation for subsidies and aids. Similarly when the guild
   lands and chantry lands were confiscated at the beginning of
   Edward's reign, a promise was made that the estates of these
   foundations should be devoted to good and proper uses, for
   erecting grammar schools, for the further augmentation of the
   universities, and the better provision for the poor and needy.
   They were swept into the hands of Seymour and Somerset, of the
   Dudleys and Cecils, and the rest of the crew who surrounded
   the throne of Edward. It cannot, therefore, I think, be
   doubted that this violent change of ownership, apart from any
   considerations of previous practice in these several
   institutions, must have aggravated whatever evils already
   existed. … The guardians of Edward attempted, in a savage
   statute passed in the first year of his reign, to restrain
   pauperism and vagabondage by reducing the landless and
   destitute poor to slavery, by branding them, and making them
   work in chains. The Act, however, only endured for two years.
   In the last year of Edward's reign two collectors were to be
   appointed in every parish, who were to wait on every person of
   substance and inquire what sums he will give weekly to the
   relief of the poor. The promises are to be entered in a book,
   and the collectors were authorized to employ the poor in such
   work as they could perform, paying them from the fund. Those
   who refused to aid were to be first exhorted by the ministers
   and church wardens, and if they continued obstinate were to be
   denounced to the bishop, who is to remonstrate with such
   uncharitable folk. … In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign (5,
   cap. 3) the unwilling giver, after being exhorted by the
   bishop, is to be bound to appear before the justices, in
   quarter sessions, where, if he be still obdurate to
   exhortation, the justices are empowered to tax him in a weekly
   sum, and commit him to prison till he pays. … There was only a
   step from the process under which a reluctant subscriber to
   the poor law was assessed by the justices and imprisoned on
   refusal, to the assessment of all property under the
   celebrated Act of 43 Elizabeth [1601], cap. 3. The law had
   provided for the regular appointment of assessors for the levy
   of rates, for supplying work to the able-bodied, for giving
   relief to the infirm and old, and for binding apprentices. It
   now consolidates the experience of the whole reign, defines
   the kind of property on which the rate is to be levied,
   prescribes the manner in which the assessors shall be
   appointed, and inflicts penalties on parties who infringe its
   provisions. It is singular that the Act was only temporary. It
   was, by the last clause, only to continue to the end of the
   next session of parliament. It was, however, renewed, and
   finally made perpetual by 16 Car. I., cap. 4. The economical
   history of labour in England is henceforward intimately
   associated with this remarkable Act. … The Act was to be
   tentative, indeed, but in its general principles it lasted
   till 1835. … The effect of poor law relief on the wages of
   labour was to keep them hopelessly low, to hinder a rise even
   under the most urgent circumstances."

      _J. E. Thorold Rogers,
      Six Centuries of Work and Wages,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

   "In February 1834 was published perhaps the most remarkable
   and startling document to be found in the whole range of
   English, perhaps, indeed, of all, social history. It was the
   Report upon the administration and practical operation of the
   Poor Laws by the Commissioners who had been appointed to
   investigate the subject. … It was their rare good fortune not
   only to lay bare the existence of abuses and trace them to
   their roots, but also to propound and enforce the remedies by
   which they might be cured."

      _T. W. Fowle,
      The Poor Law,
      chapter 4._

   "The poor-rate had become public spoil. The ignorant believed
   it an inexhaustible fund which belonged to them. To obtain
   their share, the brutal bullied the administrators, the
   profligate exhibited their bastards which must be fed, the
   idle folded their arms and waited till they got it; ignorant
   boys and girls married upon it; poachers, thieves, and
   prostitutes extorted it by intimidation; country justices
   lavished it for popularity, and guardians for convenience.
   This was the way the fund went. As for whence it arose—it
   came, more and more every year, out of the capital of the
   shopkeeper and the farmer, and the diminishing resources of
   the country gentleman. … Instead of the proper number of
   labourers to till his lands—labourers paid by himself—the
   farmer was compelled to take double the number, whose wages
   were paid partly out of the rates; and these men, being
   employed by compulsion on him, were beyond his control—worked
   or not as they chose —let down the quality of his land, and
   disabled him from employing the better men who would have
   toiled hard for independence. These better men sank down among
   the worse; the rate-paying cottager, after a vain struggle,
   went to the pay-table to seek relief; the modest girl might
   starve, while her bolder neighbour received 1s. 6d. per week
   for every illegitimate child.
{2564}
   Industry, probity, purity, prudence– all heart and spirit—the
   whole soul of goodness —were melting down into depravity and
   social ruin, like snow under the foul internal fires which
   precede the earthquake. There were clergymen in the
   commission, as well as politicians and economists; and they
   took these things to heart, and laboured diligently to frame
   suggestions for a measure which should heal and recreate the
   moral spirit as well as the economical condition of society in
   England. To thoughtful observers it is clear that the … grave
   aristocratic error … of confounding in one all ranks below a
   certain level of wealth was at the bottom of much poor-law
   abuse, as it has been of the opposition to its amendment. …
   Except the distinction between sovereign and subject, there is
   no social difference in England so wide as that between the
   independent labourer and the pauper; and it is equally
   ignorant, immoral, and impolitic to confound the two. This
   truth was so apparent to the commissioners, and they conveyed
   it so fully to the framers of the new poor-law, that it forms
   the very foundation of the measure. … Enlightened by a
   prodigious accumulation of evidence, the commissioners offered
   their suggestions to government; and a bill to amend the
   poor-law was prepared and proposed to the consideration of
   parliament early in 1834. … If one main object of the reform
   was to encourage industry, it was clearly desirable to remove
   the impediments to the circulation of labour. Settlement by
   hiring and service was to exist no longer; labour could freely
   enter any parish where it was wanted, and leave it for another
   parish which might, in its turn, want hands. In observance of
   the great principle that the independent labourer was not to
   be sacrificed to the pauper, all administration of relief to
   the able-bodied at their own homes was to be discontinued as
   soon as possible; and the allowance system was put an end to
   entirely. … Henceforth, the indigent must come into the
   workhouse for relief, if he must have it. … The able-bodied
   should work—should do a certain amount of work for every meal.
   They might go out after the expiration of twenty-four hours;
   but while in the house they must work. The men, women, and
   children must be separated; and the able-bodied and infirm. …
   In order to a complete and economical classification in the
   workhouses, and for other obvious reasons, the new act
   provided for unions of parishes. … To afford the necessary
   control over such a system … a central board was
   indispensable, by whose orders, and through whose
   assistant-commissioners, everything was to be arranged, and to
   whom all appeals were to be directed. … Of the changes
   proposed by the new law, none was more important to morals
   than that which threw the charge of the maintenance of
   illegitimate children upon the mother. … The decrease of
   illegitimate births was what many called wonderful, but only
   what the framers of the law had anticipated from the removal
   of direct pecuniary inducement to profligacy, and from the
   awakening of proper care in parents of daughters, and of
   reflection in the women themselves. … On the 14th of August
   1834, the royal assent was given to the Poor–law Amendment
   Act, amidst prognostications of utter failure from the timid,
   and some misgivings among those who were most confident of the
   absolute necessity of the measure. … Before two years were
   out, wages were rising and rates were falling in the whole
   series of country parishes; farmers were employing more
   labourers; surplus labour was absorbed; bullying paupers were
   transformed into steady working-men; the decrease of
   illegitimate births, chargeable to the parish, throughout
   England, was nearly 10,000, or nearly 13 per cent.; … and,
   finally, the rates, which had risen nearly a million in their
   annual amount during the five years before the poor-law
   commission was issued, sank down, in the course of the five
   years after it, from being upwards of seven millions to very
   little above four."

      _H. Martineau,
      A History of the Thirty Years Peace,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   In 1838 the Act was extended to Ireland, and in 1845 to
   Scotland.

      _T. W. Fowle,
      The Poor Law,
      chapter 4._

   "The new Poor Law was passed by Parliament in 1834; and the
   oversight of its administration was placed in the hands of a
   special board of commissioners, then known as the Central Poor
   Law Board. This board, which was not represented in
   Parliament, was continued until 1847. In that year it was
   reconstructed and placed under the presidency of a minister
   with a seat in the House of Commons—a reconstruction putting
   it on a political level with the Home Office and the other
   important Government Departments at Whitehall. The Department
   was henceforward known as the Poor Law Board, and continued to
   be so named until 1871, when there was another reconstruction.
   This time the Poor Law Board took over from the Home Office
   various duties in respect of municipal government and public
   health, and from the Privy Council the oversight of the
   administration of the vaccination laws and other powers, and
   its title was changed to that of the Local Government Board.
   Since then hardly a session of Parliament has passed in which
   its duties and responsibilities have not been added to, until
   at the present time the Local Government Board is more
   directly in touch with the people of England and Wales than
   any other Government Department. There is not a village in the
   land which its inspectors do not visit or to which the
   official communications of the Board are not addressed."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir G. Nicholls,
      History of the English Poor-Law._

      _F. Peek,
      Social Wreckage._

POOR MEN OF LYONS.
POOR MEN OF LOMBARDY.

      See WALDENSES.

POOR PRIESTS OF LOLLARDY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414.

POPE, General John.
   Capture of New Madrid and Island Number Ten.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-APRIL: ON THE .MISSISSIPPI).

   Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

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

   Virginia campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      (AUGUST: VIRGINIA);
      and (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

POPE, The.

      See PAPACY.

POPHAM COLONY, The.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

POPISH PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

POPOL VUH, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

{2565}

POPOLOCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

POPULARES.

      See OPTIMATES.

PORNOCRACY AT ROME.

      See ROME: A. D. 903-964.

PORT GIBSON, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT HUDSON, Siege and capture of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORT JACKSON: A. D. 1770-1788.
   The discovery.
   The naming.
   The first settlement.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

PORT MAHON.

      See MINORCA.

PORT PHILLIP DISTRICT.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1839-1855.

PORT REPUBLIC, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   ----------PORT ROYAL: Start--------

PORT ROYAL,
   The Jansenists: A. D. 1602-1660.
   The monastery under Mère Angelique
   and the hermits of the Port Royal Valley.
   Their acceptance of the doctrines of Jansenius.
   Their conflict with the Jesuits.

   "The monastery of Port Royal … was founded in the beginning of
   the 13th century, in the reign of Philip Augustus; and a later
   tradition claimed this magnificent monarch as the author of
   its foundation and of its name. … But this is the story of a
   time when, as it has been said, 'royal founders were in
   fashion.' More truly, the name is considered to be derived
   from the general designation of the fief or district in which
   the valley lies, Porrois—which, again, is supposed to be a
   corruption of Porra or Borra, meaning a marshy and woody
   hollow. The valley of Port Royal presents to this day the same
   natural features which attracted the eye of the devout
   solitary in the seventeenth century. … It lies about eighteen
   miles west of Paris, and seven or eight from Versailles, on
   the road to Chevreuse. … The monastery was founded, not by
   Philip Augustus, but by Matthieu, first Lord of Marli, a
   younger son of the noble house of Montmorency. Having formed
   the design of accompanying the crusade proclaimed by Innocent
   III. to the Holy Land, he left at the disposal of his wife,
   Mathilde de Garlande, and his kinsman, the Bishop of Paris, a
   sum of money to devote to some pious work in his absence. They
   agreed to apply it to the erection of a monastery for nuns in
   this secluded valley, that had already acquired a reputation
   for sanctity in connection with the old chapel dedicated to
   St. Lawrence, which attracted large numbers of worshippers.
   The foundations of the church and monastery were laid in 1204.
   They were designed by the same architect who built the
   Cathedral of Amiens, and ere long the graceful and beautiful
   structures were seen rising in the wilderness. The nuns
   belonged to the Cistercian order. Their dress was white
   woollen, with a black veil; but afterwards they adopted as
   their distinctive badge a large scarlet cross on their white
   scapulary, as the symbol of the 'Institute of the Holy
   Sacrament.' The abbey underwent the usual history of such
   institutions. Distinguished at first by the strictness of its
   discipline and the piety of its inmates, it became gradually
   corrupted with increasing wealth, till, in the end of the
   sixteenth century, it had grown notorious for gross and
   scandalous abuses. … But at length its revival arose out of
   one of the most obvious abuses connected with it. The
   patronage of the institution, like that of others, had been
   distributed without any regard to the fitness of the
   occupants, even to girls of immature age. In this manner the
   abbey of Port Royal accidentally fell to the lot of one who
   was destined by her ardent piety to breathe a new life into
   it, and by her indomitable and lofty genius to give it an
   undying reputation. Jacqueline Marie Arnauld—better known by
   her official name, La Mère Angélique—was appointed abbess of
   Port Royal when she was only eight years of age. She was
   descended from a distinguished family belonging originally to
   the old noblesse of Provence, but which had migrated to
   Auvergne and settled there. Of vigorous healthiness, both
   mental and physical, the Arnaulds had already acquired a
   merited position and name in the annals of France. In the
   beginning of the sixteenth century it found its way to Paris
   in the person of Antoine Arnauld, Seigneur de la Mothe, the
   grandfather of the heroine of Port Royal. … Antoine Arnauld
   married the youthful daughter of M. Marion, the
   Avocat-general. … The couple had twenty children, and felt, as
   may be imagined, the pressure of providing for so many. Out of
   this pressure came the remarkable lot of two of the daughters.
   The benefices of the Church were a fruitful field of
   provision, and the avocat-general, the maternal grandfather of
   the children, had large ecclesiastical influence. The result
   was the appointment not only of one daughter to the abbey of
   Port Royal, but also of a younger sister, Agnes, only six
   years of age, to the abbey of St Cyr, about six miles distant
   from Port Royal. … At the age of eleven, in the year 1602,
   Angélique was installed Abbess of Port Royal. Her sister took
   the veil at the age of seven. … The remarkable story of
   Angélique's conversion by the preaching of a Capucin friar in
   1608, her strange contest with her parents which followed, the
   strengthening impulses in different directions which her
   religious life received, first from the famous St Francis de
   Sales, and finally, and especially, from the no less
   remarkable Abbé de St Cyran, all belong to the history of Port
   Royal."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Pascal,
      chapter 4._

   "The numbers at the Port Royal had increased to eighty, and
   the situation was so unhealthy that there were many deaths. In
   1626 they moved to Paris, and the abbey in the fields remained
   for many years deserted. M. Zamet, a pious but not a great
   man, for a while had the spiritual charge of the Port Royal,
   but in 1634 the abbé of St. Cyran became its director. To his
   influence is due the position it took in the coming conflict
   of Jansenism, and the effects of his teachings can be seen in
   the sisters, and in most of the illustrious recluses who
   attached themselves to the monastery. St. Cyran had been an
   early associate of Jansenius, whose writings became such a
   fire-brand in the Church. As young men they devoted the most
   of five years to an intense study of St. Augustine. It is said
   Jansenius read all of his works ten times, and thirty times
   his treatises against the Pelagians. The two students resolved
   to attempt a reformation in the belief of the Church, which
   they thought was falling away from many of the tenets of the
   father.
{2566}
   Jansenius was presently made bishop of Ypres by the Spanish as
   a reward for a political tract, but he pursued his studies in
   his new bishopric. … In 1640, the Augustinus appeared, in
   which the bishop of Ypres sought, by a full reproduction of
   the doctrines of St. Augustine, to bring the Church back from
   the errors of the Pelagians to the pure and severe tenets of
   the great father. The doctrine of grace, the very corner–stone
   of the Christian faith, was that which Jansenius labored to
   revive. Saint Augustine had taught that, before the fall of
   our first parents, man, being in astute of innocence, could of
   his own free will do works acceptable to God; but after that
   his nature was so corrupted, that no good thing could proceed
   from it, save only as divine grace worked upon him. This grace
   God gave as He saw fit, working under his eternal decrees, and
   man, except as predestined and elected to its sovereign help,
   could accomplish no righteous act, and must incur God's just
   wrath. But the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians had departed from
   this doctrine, and attributed a capacity to please God, to
   man's free will and the deeds proceeding from it—a belief
   which could but foster his carnal pride and hasten his
   damnation. The Jesuits were always desirous to teach religion
   so that it could most easily be accepted, and they had
   inclined to semi-Pelagian doctrines, rather than to the
   difficult truths of St. Augustine. Yet no one questioned his
   authority. The dispute was as to the exact interpretation of
   his writings. Jansenius claimed to have nothing in his great
   book save the very word of Augustine, or its legitimate
   result. The Jesuits replied that his writings contained
   neither the doctrine of Augustine nor the truth of God. They
   appealed to the Pope for the condemnation of these heresies.
   Jansenius had died before the publication of his book, but his
   followers, who were soon named after him, endeavored to defend
   his works from censure. … It was not until 1653 that the
   influence of the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining the
   condemnation of the offending book. In that year, Innocent X.
   issued a bull, by which he condemned as heretical five
   propositions contained in the Augustinus. … The members of the
   Port Royal adopted the Jansenist cause. Saint Cyran had been a
   fellow worker with Jansenius, and he welcomed the Augustinus
   as a book to revive and purify the faith of the Church. … The
   rigid predestinarianism of Jansen had a natural attraction for
   the stern zeal of the Port Royal. The religion of the convent
   and of those connected with it bordered on asceticism. They
   lived in the constant awe of God, seeking little communion
   with the world, and offering to it little compromise. … An
   intense and rigorous religious life adopts an intense and
   rigorous belief. The Jansenists resembled the English and
   American Puritans. They shared their Calvinistic tenets and
   their strict morality. A Jansenist, said the Jesuits, is a
   Calvinist saying mass. No accusation was more resented by
   those of the Jansenist party. They sought no alliance with the
   Protestants. Saint Cyran and Arnauld wrote prolifically
   against the Calvinists. They were certainly separated from the
   latter by their strong devotion to two usages of the Catholic
   Church which were especially objectionable to Protestants—the
   mass and the confessional. … In 1647, Mother Angelique with
   some of the sisters returned to Port Royal in the Fields. The
   convent at Paris continued in close relations with it, but the
   abbey in the fields was to exhibit the most important phases
   of devotional life. Before the return of the sisters, this
   desolate spot had begun to be the refuge for many eminent men,
   whose careers became identified with the fate of the abbey.
   'We saw arrive,' writes one of them, 'from diverse provinces,
   men of different professions, who, like mariners that had
   suffered shipwreck, came to seck the Port.' M. le Maitre, a
   nephew of Mother Angelique, a lawyer of much prominence, a
   counsellor of state, a favorite of the chancellor and renowned
   for his eloquent harangues, abandoned present prosperity and
   future eminence, and in 1638 built a little house, near the
   monastery, and became the first of those who might be called
   the hermits of the Port Royal. Not taking orders, nor becoming
   a member of any religious body, he sought a life of lonely
   devotion in this barren place. … Others gradually followed,
   until there grew up a community, small in numbers, but strong
   in influence, united in study, in penance, in constant praise
   and worship. Though held together by no formal vows, few of
   those who put hand to the plough turned back from the work.
   They left their beloved retreat only when expelled by force,
   and with infinite regret. The monastery itself had become
   dilapidated. It was surrounded by stagnant waters, and the
   woods near by were full of snakes. But the recluses found
   religious joy amid this desolation. … As their numbers
   increased they did much, however, to improve the desolate
   retreat they had chosen. … Some of the recluses cultivated the
   ground. Others even made shoes, and the Jesuits dubbed them
   the cobblers. They found occupation not only in such labors
   and in solitary meditation, but in the more useful work of
   giving the young an education that was sound in learning and
   grounded in piety. The schools of the Port Royal had a
   troubled existence of about fifteen years. Though they rarely
   had over fifty pupils, yet in this brief period they left
   their mark. Racine, Tillemont, and many others of fruitful
   scholarship and piety were among the pupils who were watched
   and trained by the grave anchorites with a tender and
   fostering care. … The judicious teachers of the Port Royal
   taught reading in French, and in many ways did much to improve
   the methods of French instruction and scholarship. The
   children were thoroughly trained also in Greek and Latin, in
   logic and mathematics. Their teachers published admirable
   manuals for practical study in many branches. 'They sought,'
   says one, 'to render study more agreeable than play or games.'
   The jealousy of the Jesuits, who were well aware of the
   advantages of controlling the education of the young, at last
   obtained the order for the final dispersion of these little
   schools, and in 1660 they were closed for ever. Besides these
   manuals for teaching, the literature of the Port Royal
   comprised many controversial works, chief among them the
   forty-two volumes of Arnauld. It furnished also a translation
   of the Bible by Saci, which, though far from possessing the
   merits of the English version of King James, is one of the
   best of the many French translations. But the works of Blaise
   Pascal were the great productions of the Port Royal, as he
   himself was its chief glory. The famous Provincial Letters
   originated from the controversy over Jansenism, though they
   soon turned from doctrinal questions to an attack on the
   morality of the Jesuits that permanently injured the influence
   of that body."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 20 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. A. Schimmelpenninck,
      Select Memoirs of Port Royal._

{2567}

PORT ROYAL: A. D. 1702-1715.
   Renewed persecution.
   Suppression and destruction of the Monastery.
   The odious Bull Unigenitus, and its tyrannical enforcement.

   "The Jesuits had been for some time at a low ebb, in the
   beginning of the 18th century, the Cardinal de Noailles,
   Archbishop of Paris, then ruling the King through Madame de
   Maintenon, and himself submitting to the direction of Bossuet.
   The imprudence of the Jansenists, their indefatigable spirit
   of dispute, restored to their enemies the opportunity to
   retrieve their position. In 1702, forty Sorbonne doctors
   resuscitated the celebrated question of fact concerning the
   five propositions of Jansenius, and maintained that, in the
   presence of the decisions of the Church on points of fact and
   not of dogma, a respectful silence sufficed without internal
   acquiescence. Some other propositions of a Jansenistic
   tendency accompanied this leading question. Bossuet hastened
   to interfere to stifle the matter, and to induce the doctors
   to retract. … Thirty-nine doctors retracted out of forty. The
   King forbade the publication thenceforth of anything
   concerning these matters, but, in his own name, and that of
   Philip V. [of Spain, his grandson], entreated Pope Clement XI.
   to renew the constitutions of his predecessors against
   Jansenism. … Clement XI. responded to the King's wishes by a
   Bull which fell in the midst of the assembly of the clergy in
   1705. Cardinal de Noailles, who presided, made reservations
   against the infallibility of the Church in affairs of fact.
   The assembly, animated with a Gallican spirit, accepted the
   Bull, but established that the constitutions of the Popes bind
   the whole Church only when they have been accepted by the
   bodies of the pastors,' and that this acceptance on the part
   of the bishops is made 'by way of judgment.' The court of Rome
   was greatly offended that the bishops should claim to 'judge'
   after it, and this gave rise to long negotiations: the King
   induced the bishops to offer to the Pope extenuating
   explanations. The Jesuits, however, regained the ascendency at
   Versailles, and prepared against Cardinal de Noailles a
   formidable engine of war." The Cardinal had given his
   approval, some years before, to a work—"Moral Reflections on
   the New Testament"—published by Father Quesnel, who
   afterwards became a prominent Jansenist. The Jesuits now
   procured the condemnation of this work, by the congregation of
   the Index, and a decree from the Pope prohibiting it. "This
   was a rude assault on Cardinal de Noailles. The decree,
   however, was not received in France, through a question of
   form, or rather, perhaps, because the King was then
   dissatisfied with the Pope, on account of the concessions of
   Clement XI. to the House of Austria. The Jansenists gained
   nothing thereby. At this very moment, a terrible blow was
   about to fall on the dearest and most legitimate object of
   their veneration." The nuns of Port-Royal of the Fields having
   refused to subscribe to the papal constitution of 1705, the
   Pope had subjected them to the Abbess of Port-Royal of Paris,
   "who did not share their Augustinian faith (1708). They
   resisted. Meanwhile, Father La Chaise [the King's confessor]
   died, and Le Tellier succeeded him. The affair was carried to
   the most extreme violence. Cardinal de Noailles, a man of pure
   soul and feeble character, was persuaded, in order to prove
   that he was not a Jansenist, to cruelty, despite himself,
   towards the rebellious nuns. They were torn from their
   monastery and dispersed through different convents (November,
   1709). The illustrious abbey of Port-Royal, hallowed, even in
   the eyes of unbelievers, by the name of so many great men, by
   the memory of so much virtue, was utterly demolished, by the
   order of the lieutenant of police, D'Argenson. Two years
   after, as if it were designed to exile even the shades that
   haunted the valley, the dead of Port-Royal were exhumed, and
   their remains transferred to a village cemetery (at Magny).
   Noailles, while he entered into this persecution, took the
   same course, nevertheless, as the nuns of Port-Royal, by
   refusing to retract the approbation which he had given to the
   'Moral Reflections.' Le Tellier caused him to be denounced to
   the King. … The King prohibited Quesnel's book by a decree in
   council (November 11, 1711), and demanded of the Pope a new
   condemnation of this book, in a form that could be received in
   France. The reply of Clement XI. was delayed until September
   8, 1713; this was the celebrated Unigenitus Bull, the work of
   Le Tellier far more than of the Pope, and which, instead of
   the general terms of the Bull of 1708, expressly condemned 101
   propositions extracted from the 'Moral Reflections.' … The
   Bull dared condemn the very words of St. Augustine and of St.
   Paul himself; there were propositions, on other matters than
   grace, the condemnation of which was and should have been
   scandalous, and seemed veritably the triumph of Jesuitism over
   Christianity; for example, those concerning the necessity of
   the love of God. It had dared to condemn this: 'There is no
   God, there is no religion, where there is not charity.' This
   was giving the pontifical sanction to the Jesuitical theories
   most contrary to the general spirit of Christian theology. It
   was the same with the maxims relative to the Holy Scriptures.
   The Pope had anathematized the following propositions: 'The
   reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. Christians should
   keep the Sabbath-day holy by reading the Scriptures; it is
   dangerous to deprive them of these.' And also this: 'The fear
   of unjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our
   duty.' This was overturning all political Gallicanism." The
   acceptance of the Bull was strongly but vainly resisted. The
   King and the King's malignant confessor spared no exercise of
   their unbridled power to compel submission to it. "It was
   endeavored to stifle by terror public opinion contrary to the
   Bull: exiles, imprisonments, were multiplied from day to day."
   And still, when Louis XIV. died, on the 1st day of September,
   1715, the struggle was not at an end.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

{2568}

   "It is now time that I should say something of the infamous
   bull Unigenitus, which by the unsurpassed audacity and
   scheming of Father Le Tellier and his friends was forced upon
   the Pope and the world. I need not enter into a very lengthy
   account of the celebrated Papal decree which has made so many
   martyrs, depopulated our schools, introduced ignorance,
   fanaticism, and misrule, rewarded vice, thrown the whole
   community into the greatest confusion, caused disorder
   everywhere, and established the most arbitrary and the most
   barbarous inquisition; evils which have doubled within the
   last thirty years. I will content myself with a word or two,
   and will not blacken further the pages of my Memoirs. … It is
   enough to say that the new bull condemned in set terms the
   doctrines of St. Paul, … and also those of St. Augustin, and
   of other fathers; doctrines which have always been adopted by
   the Popes, by the Councils, and by the Church itself. The
   bull, as soon as published, met with a violent opposition in
   Rome from the cardinals there, who went by sixes, by eights,
   and by tens, to complain of it to the Pope. … He protested …
   that the publication had been made without his knowledge, and
   put off the cardinals with compliments, excuses, and tears,
   which last he could always command. The constitution had the
   same fate in France as in Rome. The cry against it was
   universal."

      _Duke of Saint Simon,
      Memoirs (abridged translation by St. John),
      volume 3, chapter 6._

   "Jansenism … laid hold upon all ecclesiastical bodies with
   very few exceptions, it predominated altogether in theological
   literature; all public schools that were not immediately under
   the Jesuits, or, as in Spain, under the Inquisition, held
   Jansenist opinions, at least so far as the majority of their
   theologians were concerned. In Rome itself this teaching was
   strongly represented amongst the cardinals." Fenelon declared
   "that nobody knew—now that the controversy and the
   condemnations had gone on for sixty years—in what the
   erroneous doctrine exactly consisted; for the Roman court
   stuck fast to the principle of giving no definition of what
   ought to be believed, so that the same doctrine which it
   apparently rejected in one form, was unhesitatingly accepted
   at Rome itself when expressed in other though synonymous
   terms. … The same thing which under one name was condemned,
   was under another, as the teaching of the Thomists or
   Augustinians, declared to be perfectly orthodox. … Just
   because nobody could tell in what sense such propositions as
   those taken from the works of Jansenius or Quesnel were to be
   rejected, did they become valuable; for the whole question was
   turned into one of blind obedience and submission, without
   previous investigation. The Jesuit D'Aubenton, who as
   Tellier's agent in Rome had undertaken to procure that the
   passages selected from Quesnel's book should be condemned,
   repeatedly informed his employer that at Rome everything
   turned upon the papal infallibility; to get this passed whilst
   the king was ready to impose, by force of arms, upon the
   bishops and clergy the unquestioning acceptance of the papal
   constitution, was the only object."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Jarvis,
      History of the Church of France,
      volume 2, chapters 5-7._

      _F. Rocquain,
      The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution,
      chapter 1._

   ----------PORT ROYAL: End--------

   ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: Start--------

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1603-1613.
   Settled by the French, and destroyed by the English.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; 1606-1608; and 1610-1613.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1690.
   Taken by an expedition from Massachusetts.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1691.
   Recovered by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.

PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: A. D. 1710.
   Final conquest by the English and
   change of name to Annapolis Royal.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

   ----------PORT ROYAL, Nova Scotia: End--------

PORT ROYAL EXPEDITION, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

PORTCHESTER, Origin of.

      See PORTUS MAGNUS.

PORTE, The Sublime.

      See SUBLIME PORTE;
      also PHARAOH.

PORTEOUS RIOT, The.

      See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

PORTER, Admiral David D.:
   Capture of New Orleans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   Second attempt against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

PORTICO, The Athenian, Suppression of.

      See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

PORTLAND MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

PORTO NOVO, Battle of (1781).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

PORTO RICO: Discovery by Columbus (1493).

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

PORTO VENERE, Naval Battle of (1494).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1668.

   Capture by the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

PORTOBELLO: A. D. 1740.
   Capture by Admiral Vernon.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

PORTOLONGO, or Sapienza, Battle of (1354).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

   ----------PORTUGAL: Start--------

PORTUGAL:
   Early history.
   Mistaken identification with ancient Lusitania.
   Roman, Gothic, Moorish and Spanish conquests.
   The county of Henry of Burgundy.

   "The early history of the country, which took the name of
   Portugal from the county which formed the nucleus of the
   future kingdom, is identical with that of the rest of the
   Iberian peninsula, but deserves some slight notice because of
   an old misconception, immortalized in the title of the famous
   epic of Camoens, and not yet entirely eradicated even from
   modern ideas. Portugal, like the rest of the peninsula, was
   originally inhabited by men of the prehistoric ages. … There
   seems to be no doubt that the Celts, the first Aryan
   immigrants, were preceded by a non-Aryan race, which is called
   by different writers the Iberian or Euskaldunac nation, but
   this earlier race speedily amalgamated with the Celts, and out
   of the two together were formed the five tribes inhabiting the
   Iberian peninsula, which Strabo names as the Cantabrians, the
   Vasconians, the Asturians, the Gallicians and the Lusitanians.
   It is Strabo, also, who mentions the existence of Greek
   colonies at the mouth of the Tagus, Douro, and Minho, and it
   is curious to note that the old name of Lisbon, Olisipo, was
   from the earliest times identified with that of the hero of
   the Odyssey, and was interpreted to mean the city of Ulysses.
   …
{2569}
   The Carthaginians, though they had colonies all over the
   peninsula, established their rule mainly over the south and
   east of it, having their capital at Carthagena or Nova
   Carthago, and seem to have neglected the more barbarous
   northern and western provinces. It was for this reason that
   the Romans found far more difficulty in subduing these latter
   provinces. … In 189 B. C. Lucius Æmilius Paullus defeated the
   Lusitanians, and in 185 B. C. Gaius Calpurnius forced his way
   across the Tagus. There is no need here to discuss the gradual
   conquest by the Romans of that part of the peninsula which
   includes the modern kingdom of Portugal, but it is necessary
   to speak of the gallant shepherd Viriathus, who sustained a
   stubborn war against the Romans from 149 B. C. until he was
   assassinated in 139 B. C., because he has been generally
   claimed as the first national hero of Portugal. This claim has
   been based upon the assumed identification of the modern
   Portugal with the ancient Lusitania [see LUSITANIA, an
   identification which has spread its roots deep in Portuguese
   literature, and has until recently been generally accepted. …
   The Celtic tribe of Lusitanians dwelt, according to Strabo, in
   the districts north of the Tagus, while the Lusitania of the
   Latin historians of the Republic undoubtedly lay to the south
   of that river, though it was not used as the name of a
   province until the time of Augustus, when the old division of
   the peninsula into Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior was
   superseded by the division into Betica, Tarraconensis, and
   Lusitania. Neither in this division, nor in the division of
   the peninsula into the five provinces of Tarraconensis,
   Carthaginensis, Betica, Lusitania, and Gallicia, under
   Hadrian, was the province called Lusitania coterminous with
   the modern kingdom of Portugal. Under each division the name
   was given to a district south of the Tagus. … It is important
   to grasp the result of this misconception, for it emphasizes
   the fact that the history of Portugal for many centuries is
   merged in that of the rest of the Iberian peninsula, and
   explains why it is unnecessary to study the wars of the
   Lusitanians with the Roman Republic, as is often done in
   histories of Portugal. Like the rest of the peninsula Portugal
   was thoroughly Latinized in the days of the Roman Empire;
   Roman 'coloniæ', and 'municipia' were established in places
   suited for trade, such as Lisbon and Oporto. … Peaceful
   existence under the sway of Rome continued until the beginning
   of the 5th century, when the Goths first forced their way
   across the Pyrenees. …

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

   The Visigothic Empire left but slight traces in Portugal." The
   Mohammedan conquest by the Arab-Moors, which began early in
   the 8th century, extended to Portugal, and for a general
   account of the struggle in the peninsula between Christians
   and Moslems during several succeeding centuries the reader is
   referred to SPAIN: A. D. 711-713, and after. "In 997 Bermudo
   II., king of Gallicia, won back the first portion of modern
   Portugal from the Moors by seizing Oporto and occupying the
   province now known as the Entre Minho e Douro. … In 1055
   Ferdinand 'the Great,' king of Leon, Castile, and Gallicia,
   invaded the Beira; in 1057 he took Lamego and Viseu; and in
   1064 Coimbra, where he died in the following year. He arranged
   for the government of his conquests in the only way possible
   under the feudal system, by forming them into a county,
   extending to the Mondego, with Coimbra as its capital. The
   first count of Coimbra was Sesnando, a recreant Arab vizir,
   who had advised Ferdinand to invade his district and had
   assisted in its easy conquest. … But though Sesnando's county
   of Coimbra was the great frontier county of Gallicia, and the
   most important conquest of Ferdinand 'the Great,' it was not
   thence that the kingdom which was to develop out of his
   dominions was to take its name. Among the counties of Gallicia
   was one called the 'comitatus Portucalensis,' because it
   contained within its boundaries the famous city at the mouth
   of the Douro, known in Roman and Greek times as the Portus
   Cale, and in modern days as Oporto, or 'The Port.' This county
   of Oporto or Portugal was the one destined to give its name to
   the future kingdom, and was held at the time of Ferdinand's
   death by Nuno Mendes, the founder of one of the most famous
   families in Portuguese history. Ferdinand 'the Great' was
   succeeded in his three kingdoms of Castile, Leon, and
   Gallicia, by his three sons, Sancho, Alfonso, and Garcia, the
   last of whom received the two counties of Coimbra and Oporto
   as fiefs of Gallicia, and maintained Nuno Mendes and Sesnando
   as his feudatories." Wars between the three sons ensued, as
   the result of which "the second of them, Alfonso of Leon,
   eventually united all his father's kingdoms in 1073, as
   Alfonso VI." This Alfonso was now called upon to encounter a
   new impulse of Mohammedan aggression, under a new dynasty,
   that of the Almoravides

      See ALMORAVIDES.

   "The new dynasty collected great Moslem armies, and in 1086
   Yusuf Ibn Teshfin routed Alfonso utterly at the battle of
   Zalaca, and reconquered the peninsula up to the Ebro. …
   Alfonso tried to compensate for this defeat and his loss of
   territory in the east of his dominions by conquests in the
   west, and in 1093 he advanced to the Tagus and took Santarem
   and Lisbon, and made Sueiro Mendes, count of the new district.
   But these conquests he did not hold for long. … In 1093 Seyr,
   the general of the Almoravide caliph Yusuf, took Evora from
   the Emir of Badajoz; in 1094 he took Badajoz itself, and
   killed the emir; and retaking Lisbon and Santarem forced his
   way up to the Mondego. To resist this revival of the
   Mohammedan power, Alfonso summoned the chivalry of Christendom
   to his aid. Among the knights who joined his army eager to win
   their spurs, and win dominions for themselves, were Count
   Raymond of Toulouse and Count Henry of Burgundy. To the
   former, Alfonso gave his legitimate daughter, Urraca, and
   Gallicia; to the latter, his illegitimate daughter Theresa,
   and the counties of Oporto and Coimbra, with the title of
   Count of Portugal. The history of Portugal now becomes
   distinct from that of the rest of the peninsula, and it is
   from the year 1095 that the history of Portugal commences. The
   son of Henry of Burgundy was the great monarch Affonso
   Henriques, the hero of his country and the founder of a great
   dynasty."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 1._

{2570}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
   The county made independent and raised to the rank of a kingdom.
   Completion of conquests from the Moors.
   Limits of the kingdom established.

   Count Henry of Burgundy waged war for seven years with his
   Moorish neighbors; then went crusading to Palestine for two
   years. On his return in 1105 he made common cause with his
   brother-in-law and brother-adventurer, Count Raymond of
   Gallicia, against the suspected intention of King Alfonso to
   declare his bastard, half-Moorish son, Sancho, the heir to his
   dominions. "This peaceful arrangement had no result, owing to
   the death of Count Raymond in 1107, followed by that of young
   Sancho at the battle of Uclés with the Moors, in 1108, and
   finally by the death of Alfonso VI. himself in 1109. The
   king's death brought about the catastrophe. He left all his
   dominions to his legitimate daughter, Urraca, with the result
   that there was five years of fierce fighting between Henry of
   Burgundy, Alfonso Raimundes, the son of Count Raymond, Alfonso
   I. of Aragon, and Queen Urraca. … While they fought with each
   other the Mohammedans advanced. … On May 1, 1114, Count Henry
   died, … leaving his wife Theresa as regent during the minority
   of his son Affonso Henriques, who was but three years old.
   Theresa, who made the ancient city of Guimaraens her capital,
   devoted all her energies to building up her son's dominions
   into an independent state; and under her rule, while the
   Christian states of Spain were torn by internecine war, the
   Portuguese began to recognize Portugal as their country, and
   to cease from calling themselves Gallicians. This distinction
   between Portugal and Gallicia was the first step towards the
   formation of a national spirit, which grew into a desire for
   national independence." The regency of Theresa, during which
   she was engaged in many contests, with her half-sister Urraca
   and others, ended in 1128. In the later years of it she
   provoked great discontent by her infatuation with a lover to
   whom she was passionately devoted. In the end, her son headed
   a revolt which expelled her from Portugal. The son, Affonso
   Henriques, assumed the reins of government at the age of
   seventeen years. In 1130 he began a series of wars with
   Alfonso VII. of Castile, the aim of which was to establish the
   independence of Portugal. These wars were ended in 1140 by an
   agreement, "in consonance with the ideas of the times, to
   refer the great question of Portuguese Independence to a
   chivalrous contest. In a great tournament, known as the
   Tourney of Valdevez, the Portuguese knights were entirely
   successful over those of Castile, and in consequence of their
   victory Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of
   Portugal. This is the turning-point of Portuguese history, and
   it is a curious fact that the independence of Portugal from
   Gallicia was achieved by victory in a tournament and not in
   war. Up to 1136, Affonso Henriques had styled himself Infante,
   in imitation of the title borne by his mother; from 1136 to
   1140 he styled himself Principe, and in 1140 he first took the
   title of King." A little before this time, on the 25th of
   July, 1139, Affonso had defeated the Moors in a famous and
   much magnified battle—namely that of Orik or Ourique—"which,
   until modern investigators examined the facts, has been
   considered to have laid the foundations of the independence of
   Portugal. Chroniclers, two centuries after the battle,
   solemnly asserted that five kings were defeated on this
   occasion, that 200,000 Mohammedans were slain, and that after
   the victory the Portuguese soldiers raised Affonso on their
   shields and hailed him as king. This story is absolutely
   without authority from contemporary chronicles, and is quite
   as much a fiction as the Cortes of Lamego, which has been
   invented as sitting in 1143 and passing the constitutional
   laws on which Vertot and other writers have expended so much
   eloquence. … It was not until the modern school of historians
   arose in Portugal, which examined documents and did not take
   the statements of their predecessors on trust, that it was
   clearly pointed out that Affonso Henriques won his crown by
   his long struggle with his Christian cousin, and not by his
   exploits against the Moors."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapters 2-3._

   "The long reign of Affonso I., an almost uninterrupted period
   of war, is the most brilliant epoch in the history of the
   Portuguese conquests. Lisbon, which had already under its
   Moorish masters become the chief city of the west, was taken
   in 1147, and became at once the capital of the new kingdom.
   The Tagus itself was soon passed. Large portions of the modern
   Estremadura and Alemtejo were permanently annexed. The distant
   provinces of Algarve and Andalucia were overrun; and even
   Seville trembled at the successes of the Portuguese. It was in
   vain that Moorish vessels sailed from Africa to chastise the
   presumption of their Christian foes; their ships were routed
   off Lisbon by the vessels of Affonso; their armies were
   crushed by a victory at Santarem [1184], the last, and perhaps
   the most glorious of the many triumphs of the King. … Every
   conquest saw the apportionment of lands to be held by military
   tenure among the conquerors; and the Church, which was here
   essentially a militant one, received not only an endowment for
   its religion but a reward for its sword. The Orders of St.
   Michael and of Avis [St. Benedict of Avis] which were founded
   had a religious as well as a military aspect. Their members
   were to be distinguished by their piety not less than by their
   courage, and were to emulate the older brotherhoods of
   Jerusalem and of Castile. … Sancho I. [who succeeded his
   father Affonso in 1185], though not adverse to military fame,
   endeavoured to repair his country's wounds; and his reign, the
   complement of that of Affonso, was one of development rather
   than of conquest. … The surname of El Povoador, the Founder,
   is the indication of his greatest work. New towns and villages
   arose, new wealth and strength were given to the rising
   country. Affonso II. [1211] continued what Sancho had begun;
   and the enactment of laws, humane and wise, are a testimony of
   progress, and an honourable distinction to his reign." But
   Affonso II. provoked the hostility of an arrogant and too
   powerful clergy, and drew upon himself a sentence of
   excommunication from Rome. "The divisions and the weakness
   which were caused by the contest between the royal and
   ecclesiastical authority brought misery upon the kingdom. The
   reign of Sancho II. [who succeeded to the throne in 1223] was
   more fatally influenced by them even than that of his father.
   … The now familiar terrors of excommunication and interdict
   were followed [1245] by a sentence of deposition from Innocent
   IV.; and Sancho, weak in character, and powerless before a
   hostile priesthood and a disaffected people, retired to end
   his days in a cloister of Castile. The successor to Sancho was
   Affonso III.
{2571}
   He had intrigued for his brother's crown; he had received the
   support of the priesthood, and he had promised them their
   reward in the extension of their privileges"; but his
   administration of the government was wise and popular. He died
   in 1279. "The first period of the history of Portugal is now
   closed. Up to this time, each reign, disturbed and enfeebled
   though it may have been, had added something to the extent of
   the country. But now the last conquest from the Moors had been
   won. On the south, the impassable barrier of the ocean; on the
   east, the dominions of Castile, confined the kingdom. … The
   crusading days were over. … The reign of Denis, who ruled from
   1279 to 1325, is at once the parallel to that of Affonso I. in
   its duration and importance, the contrast to it in being a
   period of internal progress instead of foreign conquest. …
   That Denis should have been able to accomplish as much as he
   did, was the wonder even of his own age. … Successive reigns
   still found the country progressing."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      volume 1, books 1-4,
      and volume 2, book 1._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.
   The founding of the new dynasty, of the House of Avis.

   "The legitimate descent of the kings of Portugal from Count
   Henry, of the house of Burgundy, terminated with Ferdinand
   (the son of Peter I.) … in 1383. After wasting the resources
   of his people in the vain support of his claims to the crown
   of Castile, exposing Lisbon to a siege, and the whole country
   to devastation, this monarch gave his youthful daughter in
   marriage to the natural enemy of Portugal, John I., at that
   time the reigning king of Castile. … It was agreed between the
   contracting parties that the male issue of this connection
   should succeed to the Portuguese sceptre, and, that failing,
   that it should devolve into the hands of the Castilian
   monarch. Fortunately, however, the career of this Spanish
   tyrant was short, and no issue was left of Beatrix, for whom
   the crown of Portugal could be claimed; and therefore all the
   just pretensions of the Spaniard ceased. The marriage had
   scarcely been concluded, when Ferdinand died. It had been
   provided by the laws of the constitution, that in a case of
   emergency, such as now occurred, the election of a new
   sovereign should immediately take place. The legal heir to the
   crown, Don Juan [the late king's brother], the son of Pedro
   and Ignes de Castro, whose marriage had been solemnly
   recognised by an assembly of the states, was a prisoner at
   this time in the hands of his rival, the king of Castile. The
   necessity of having a head to the government appointed without
   delay, opened the road to the throne for John, surnamed the
   Bastard, the natural son of Don Pedro, by Donna Theresa
   Lorenzo, a Galician lady. Availing himself of the natural
   aversion by which the Portuguese were influenced against the
   Castilians, he seized the regency from the hands of the
   queen-dowager, … successfully defended Lisbon, and forced the
   Spaniards to retire into Spain after their memorable defeat on
   the plain of Aljubarota. … This battle … completely
   established the independence of the Portuguese monarchy. John
   was, in consequence, unanimously elected King by the Cortes,
   assembled at Coimbra in 1385. … In aid of his natural talents
   John I. had received an excellent education from his father,
   and during his reign exhibited proofs of being a profound
   politician, as well as a skilful general. … He became the
   founder of a new dynasty of kings, called the house of 'Avis,'
   from his having been grand master of that noble order. The
   enterprises, however, of the great Prince Henry, a son of
   John I., form a distinguishing feature of this reign."

      _W. M. Kinsey,
      Portugal Illustrated,
      pages 34-35._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.
   The taking of Ceuta.
   The exploring expeditions of Prince Henry the Navigator
   down the African coast.

   "King John [the First] had married an English wife, Philippa
   Plantagenet—a grand-daughter of our King Edward III.,
   thoroughly English, too, on her mother's side, and not without
   a dash of Scottish blood, for her great-great-grandmother was
   a Comyn of Broghan. King John of Portugal was married to his
   English wife for twenty-eight years, they had five noble sons
   and a daughter (who was Duchess of Burgundy and mother of
   Charles the Bold); and English habits and usages were adopted
   at the Portuguese Court. We first meet with Prince Henry and
   his brothers, Edward and Peter, at the bed-side of their
   English mother. The king had determined to attack Ceuta, the
   most important seaport on the Moorish coast; and the three
   young princes were to receive knighthood if they bore
   themselves manfully, and if the place was taken. Edward, the
   eldest, was twenty-four, Peter twenty-three, and Henry just
   twenty-one. He was born on March 4th, 1394. There were two
   other brothers, John and Ferdinand, but they were still too
   young to bear arms. Their mother had caused three swords to be
   made with which they were to be girt as knights; and the great
   fleet was being assembled at Lisbon. But the Queen was taken
   ill, and soon there was no hope. Husband and sons gathered
   round her death-bed. When very near her end she asked: 'How is
   the wind?' she was told that it was northerly. 'Then,' she
   said, 'You will all sail for Ceuta on the feast of St. James.'
   A few minutes afterwards she died, and husband and sons sailed
   for Ceuta on St. James's day, the 25th of July, 1415,
   according to her word. … Ceuta was taken after a desperate
   fight. It was a memorable event, for the town never again
   passed into the hands of the Moors unto this day. … From the
   time of this Ceuta expedition Prince Henry set his mind
   steadfastly on the discovery of Guinea and on the promotion of
   commercial enterprise. During his stay at Ceuta he collected
   much information respecting the African coast. … His first
   objects were to know what was beyond the farthest cape
   hitherto reached on the coast of Africa, to open commercial
   relations with the people, and to extend the Christian faith.
   Prince Henry had the capacity for taking trouble. He undertook
   the task, and he never turned aside from it until he died. To
   be close to his work he came to live on the promontory of
   Sagres, near Cape St. Vincent, and not far from the seaport of
   Lagos. He was twenty-four years old when he came to live at
   this secluded spot, in December, 1418; and he died there in
   his sixty-seventh year. … He established a school at Sagres
   for the cultivation of map-drawing and the science of
   navigation. At great expense he procured the services of
   Mestre Jacome from Majorca, a man very learned in the art of
   navigation, as it was then understood, and he erected an
   observatory. …
{2572}
   My readers will remember that during the time of the Crusades
   a great order of knighthood was established, called the
   Templars, which became very rich and powerful, and held vast
   estates in most of the countries of Europe. At last the kings
   became jealous of their prosperity and, in the days of our
   Edward II. and of the French Philip IV., their wealth was
   confiscated, and the order of Knights Templars was abolished
   in all countries except Portugal. But King Dionysius of
   Portugal refused either to rob the knights or to abolish the
   order. In the year 1319 he reformed the order, and changed the
   name, calling it the Order of Christ, and he encircled the
   white cross of the Templars with a red cross as the future
   badge of the knights. They retained their great estates.
   Prince Henry was appointed, by his father, Grand Master of the
   Order of Christ in the year 1419. He could imagine no nobler
   nor more worthy employment for the large revenues of the Order
   than the extension of geographical discovery. Thus were the
   funds for his costly expeditions supplied by the Order of
   Chivalry of which he was Grand Master. When Prince Henry first
   began to send forth expeditions along the coast of Africa, the
   farthest point to the southward that had been sighted was Cape
   Bojador. The discovery of the extreme southern point of
   Africa, and of a way thence to India, was looked upon then
   exactly as the discovery of the North Pole is now. Fools asked
   what was the use of it. Half-hearted men said it was
   impossible. Officials said it was impractical. Nevertheless,
   Prince Henry said that it could be done, and that, moreover it
   should be done. … In 1434 he considered that the time had come
   to round Cape Bojador. He selected for the command of the
   expedition an esquire of his household named Gil Eannes, who
   was accompanied by John Diaz, an experienced seaman of a
   seafaring family at Lagos, many of whose members became
   explorers. Prince Henry told them that the current which they
   feared so much was strongest at a distance of about three to
   five miles from the land. He ordered them, therefore, to stand
   out boldly to sea. 'It was a place before terrible to all
   men,' but the Prince told them that they must win fame and
   honour by following his instructions. They did so, rounded the
   Cape, and landed on the other side. There they set up a wooden
   cross as a sign of their discovery. … The Prince now equipped
   a larger vessel than had yet been sent out, called a varinel,
   propelled by oars as well as sails. Many were the eager
   volunteers among the courtiers at Sagres. Prince Henry's
   cup-bearer, named Alfonso Gonsalves Baldaya, was selected to
   command the expedition, and Gil Eannes—he who first doubled
   Cape Bojador—went with it in a smaller vessel. … They sailed
   in the year 1436, and, having rounded Cape Bojador without any
   hesitation, they proceeded southward along the coast for 120
   miles, until they reached an estuary called by them Rio
   d'Ouro. … During the five following years Prince Henry was
   much engaged in State affairs. The disastrous expedition to
   Tangiers took place, and the imprisonment of his young brother
   Ferdinand by the Moors, whose noble resignation under cruel
   insults and sufferings until he died at Fez, won for him the
   title of the 'Constant Prince.' But in 1441 Prince Henry was
   able to resume the despatch of vessels of discovery. In that
   year he gave the command of a small ship to his master of the
   wardrobe, Antam Gonsalves. … He [Gonsalves] was followed in
   the same year by Nuno Tristram. … Tristram discovered a
   headland which, from its whiteness, he named Cape Blanco. …
   The next discovery was that of the island of Arguin, south of
   Cape Blanco, which was first visited in 1443 by Nuño Tristram
   in command of a caravel. … The next voyage of discovery was
   one of great importance, because it passed the country of the
   Moors, and, for the first time, entered the land of the
   Negroes. Dinis Diaz, who was selected for this enterprise by
   the Prince, sailed in 1446 with the resolution of beating all
   his predecessors. He passed the mouth of the river Senegal,
   and was surprised at finding that the people on the north bank
   were Moors, while to the south they were all blacks; of a
   tribe called Jaloffs. Diaz went as far as a point which he
   called Cabo Verde. In the following years several expeditions,
   under Lanzarote and others, went to Arguin and the Senegal;
   until, in 1455, an important voyage under Prince Henry's
   patronage was undertaken by a young Venetian named Alvise
   (Luigi) Cadamosto. … They sailed on March 22, 1455, and went
   first to Porto Santo and Madeira. From the Canary Islands they
   made sail for Cape Blanco, boldly stretching across the
   intervening sea and being for some time quite out of sight of
   land. Cadamosto had a good deal of intercourse with the
   Negroes to the south of the Senegal, and eventually reached
   the mouth of the Gambia whence he set out on his homeward
   voyage. The actual extent of the discoveries made during the
   life of Prince Henry was from Cape Bojador to beyond the mouth
   of the Gambia. But this was only a small part of the great
   service he performed, not only for his own country, but for
   the whole civilised world. He organised discovery, trained up
   a generation of able explorers, so that from his time progress
   was continuous and unceasing. … Prince Henry, who was to be
   known to all future generations as 'the Navigator,' died at
   the age of sixty-six at Sagres, on Thursday, the 13th of
   November, 1460."

      _C. R. Markham,
      The Sea Fathers,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. H. Major,
      Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, the Navigator._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
   The Pope's gift of title to African discoveries.
   Slow southward progress of exploration.
   The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope.
   Vasco da Gama's voyage.

   "In order to secure his triumphs, Prince Henry procured a bull
   from Pope Eugenius IV., which guaranteed to the Portuguese all
   their discoveries between Cape Nun, in Morocco, and India.
   None of his commanders approached within six or eight degrees
   of the equator. … By the year 1472, St. Thomas, Annobon, and
   Prince's Islands were added to the Portuguese discoveries, and
   occupied by colonists; and at length the equator was crossed.
   Fernando Po having given his name to an island in the Bight of
   Biafra, acquired possession of 500 leagues of equatorial
   coast, whence the King of Portugal took the title of Lord of
   Guinea. The subsequent divisions of this territory into the
   Grain Coast, named from the cochineal thence obtained, and
   long thought to be the seed of a plant, Gold Coast, Ivory
   Coast, and Slave Coast, indicate by their names the nature of
   the products of those lands, and the kind of traffic.
{2573}
   Under King John II., after an inactive period of eight or ten
   years, Diego Cam (1484) pushed forward fearlessly to latitude
   22° south, erecting at intervals on the shore, pillars of
   stone, which asserted the rights of his sovereign to the
   newly-found land. For the first time, perhaps, in history, men
   had now sailed under a new firmament. They lost sight of a
   part of the old celestial constellations, and were awe-struck
   with the splendours of the Southern Cross, and hosts of new
   stars. Each successive commander aimed at outdoing the deeds
   of his predecessor. Imaginary perils, which had frightened
   former sailors, spurred the Portuguese to greater daring.
   Bartholomew Diaz, in 1486, was sent in command of an
   expedition of three ships, with directions to sail till he
   reached the southernmost headland of Africa. Creeping on from
   cape to cape, he passed the furthest point touched by Diego
   Cam, and reached about 29° south latitude. Here driven out of
   his course by rough weather, he was dismayed on again making
   land to find the coast trending northward. He had doubled the
   Cape without knowing it, and only found it out on returning,
   disheartened by the results of his voyage. Raising the banner
   of St. Philip on the shore of Table Bay, Diaz named the
   headland the Cape of Tempests, which the king, with the
   passage to India in mind, changed to that of the Cape of Good
   Hope. By a curious coincidence, in the same year Covillan [see
   ABYSSINIA: 15-19TH CENTURIES] … learnt the fact that the Cape
   of Good Hope, the Lion of the Sea, or the Head of Africa,
   could be reached across the Indian Ocean."

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      part 2, chapter 4._

   "Pedro de Covilho had sent word to King John II., from Cairo,
   by two Jews, Rabbi Abraham and Rabbi Joseph, that there was a
   south cape of Africa which could be doubled. They brought with
   them an Arabic map of the African coast. … Covilho had learned
   from the Arabian mariners, who were perfectly familiar with
   the east coast, that they had frequently been at the south of
   Africa, and that there was no difficulty in passing round the
   continent that way. … Vasco de Gama set sail July 9, 1497,
   with three ships and 160 men, having with him the Arab map.
   King John had employed his Jewish physicians, Roderigo and
   Joseph, to devise what help they could from the stars. They
   applied the astrolabe to marine use, and constructed tables.
   These were the same doctors who had told him that Columbus
   would certainly succeed in reaching India, and advised him to
   send out a secret expedition in anticipation, which was
   actually done, though it failed through want of resolution in
   its captain. Encountering the usual difficulties, tempestuous
   weather and a mutinous crew, who conspired to put him to
   death, De Gama succeeded, November 20, in doubling the Cape.
   On March 1 he met seven small Arab vessels, and was surprised
   to find that they used the compass, quadrants, sea-charts, and
   'had divers maritime mysteries not short of the Portugals.'
   With joy he soon after recovered sight of the northern stars,
   for so long unseen. He now bore away to the north-east, and on
   May 19, 1498, reached Calicut, on the Malabar coast. The
   consequences of this voyage were to the last degree important.
   The commercial arrangements of Europe were completely
   dislocated; Venice was deprived of her mercantile supremacy
   [see VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES]; the hatred of Genoa was
   gratified; prosperity left the Italian towns; Egypt, hitherto
   supposed to possess a pre-eminent advantage as offering the
   best avenue to India, suddenly lost her position; the
   commercial monopolies so long in the hands of the European
   Jews were broken down. The discovery of America and passage of
   the Cape were the first steps of that prodigious maritime
   development soon exhibited by Western Europe. And since
   commercial prosperity is forthwith followed by the production
   of men and concentration of wealth, and, moreover, implies an
   energetic intellectual condition, it appeared before long that
   the three centres of population, of wealth, of intellect, were
   shifting westwardly. The front of Europe was suddenly changed;
   the British Islands, hitherto in a sequestered and eccentric
   position, were all at once put in the van of the new
   movement."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,
      chapter 19._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Correa,
      The Three Voyages of Vasco da Gama
      (Hakluyt Society, 1869)._

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 4 (volume l)._

      _G. M. Towle,
      Voyages and Adventures of Vasco da Gama._

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1474-1476.
   Interference in Castile.
   Defeat at Toro.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1490.
   Alliance with Castile and Aragon in the conquest of Granada.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1493.
   The Pope's division of discoveries in the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended partition of the New World with Spain.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1495.
   Persecution and expulsion of Jews.

      See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1498-1580.
   Trade and settlements in the East Indies.

      See INDIA; A. D. 1498-1580.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1500-1504.
   Discovery, exploration and first settlement of Brazil.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514; and 1503-1504.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1501.
   Early enterprise in the Newfoundland fisheries.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1510-1549.
   Colonization of Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1524.
   Disputes with Spain in the division of the New World.
   The Congress at Badajos.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
   Disastrous invasion of Morocco by Sebastian.
   His death in battle.
   Disputed succession to the throne.
   The claim of Philip II. of Spain established by force of arms.

   "Under a long succession of Kings who placed their glory in
   promoting the commerce of their subjects and extending their
   discoveries through the remotest regions of the globe,
   Portugal had attained a degree of importance among the
   surrounding nations, from which the narrow limits of the
   kingdom, and the neighbourhood of the Spanish monarchy, seemed
   for ever to exclude her. … John III., the last of those great
   monarchs under whose auspices the boundaries of the known
   world had been enlarged, was succeeded in the throne of
   Portugal [1557] by his grandson Sebastian, a child of only
   three years old.
{2574}
   As the royal infant advanced to manhood, his subjects might,
   without flattery, admire his sprightly wit, his manly form,
   his daring spirit, and his superior address, in all the
   accomplishments of a martial age. But the hopes which these
   splendid qualities inspired were clouded by an intemperate
   thirst of fame. … He had early cherished the frantic project
   of transporting a royal army to India, and of rivalling the
   exploits of Alexander; but from this design he was diverted,
   not by the difficulties that opposed it, nor by the
   remonstrances of his counsellors, but by the distractions of
   Africa, which promised to his ambition a nearer and fairer
   harvest of glory. On the death of Abdalla, King of Morocco,
   his son, Muley Mahomet, had seized upon the crown, in contempt
   to an established law of succession, that the kingdom should
   devolve to the brother of the deceased monarch. A civil war
   ensued, and Mahomet, defeated in several battles, was
   compelled to leave his uncle Muley Moluc, a prince of great
   abilities and virtues, in possession of the throne." Mahomet
   escaped to Lisbon, and Sebastian espoused his cause. He
   invaded Morocco [see MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE]
   with a force partly supplied by his uncle, Philip II.; of
   Spain, and partly by the Prince of Orange, engaged the Moors
   rashly in battle (the battle of Alcazar, or the Three Kings,
   1579), and perished on the field, his army being mostly
   destroyed or made captive. "An aged and feeble priest was the
   immediate heir to the unfortunate Sebastian; and the Cardinal
   Henry, the great uncle to the late monarch, ascended the
   vacant throne." He enjoyed his royal dignity little more than
   a twelvemonth, dying in 1580, leaving the crown in dispute
   among a crowd of claimants.

      _History of Spain,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

   "The candidates were seven in number: the duchess of Braganza,
   the king of Spain, the duke of Savoy, Don Antonio, prior of
   Crato, the duke of Parma, Catherine of Medicis, and the
   sovereign pontiff. The four first were grand-children of
   Emanuel the Great, father of Henry. The duchess of Braganza
   was daughter of Prince Edward, Emanuel's second son; Philip
   was the son of the Empress Isabella, his eldest daughter; the
   duke of Savoy, of Beatrix, his younger daughter; and Don
   Antonio was a natural son of Lewis, who was a younger son of
   Emanuel, and brother to the present king [cardinal Henry]. The
   duke of Parma was great–grandson of Emanuel, by a daughter of
   the above-mentioned Prince Edward. The Queen-mother of France
   founded her claim on her supposed descent from Alphonso III.,
   who died about 300 years before the present period; and the
   Pope pretended that Portugal was feudatory to the see of Rome,
   and belonged to him, since the male heirs in the direct line
   were extinct." The other candidates held small chances against
   the power and convenient neighborhood of Philip of Spain.
   "Philip's agents at the court of Lisbon allowed that if the
   duchess of Braganza's father had been alive, his title would
   have been indisputable; but they maintained that, since he had
   died without attaining possession of the throne, nothing but
   the degree of consanguinity to Emanuel ought to be regarded;
   and that, as the duchess and he were equal in that respect,
   the preference was due to a male before a female. And they
   farther insisted, that the law which excludes strangers from
   inheriting the crown was not applicable to him, since Portugal
   had formerly belonged to the kings of Castile." Promptly on
   the death of the cardinal-king Henry, the Spanish king sent an
   army of 35,000 men, under the famous duke of Alva, and a large
   fleet under the Marquis of Santa Croce, to take possession of
   what he claimed as his inheritance. Two battles sufficed for
   the subjugation of Portugal:—one fought on the Alcantara,
   August 25, 1580, and the other a little later on the Douro.
   The kingdom submitted, but with bitter feelings, which the
   conduct of Alva and his troops had intensified at every step
   of their advance. "The colonies in America, Africa, and the
   Indies, which belonged to the crown of Portugal, quickly
   followed the example of the mother country; nor did Philip
   find employment for his arms in any part of the Portuguese
   dominions but the Azores," which, supported by the French,
   were not subdued until the following year.

      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 16._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1594-1602.
   Beginning of the rivalry of the Dutch in East India trade.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1624-1661.
   War with the Dutch.
   Loss and recovery of parts of Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
   Crisis of discontent with the Spanish rule.
   A successful revolution.
   National independence recovered.
   The House of Braganza placed on the throne.

   "A spirit of dissatisfaction had long been growing amongst the
   Portugueze. Their colonies were neglected; a great part of
   Brazil, and a yet larger portion of their Indian empire, had
   fallen into the hands of the Dutch; Ormus, and their other
   possessions in the Persian Gulph, had been conquered by the
   Persians; their intercourse with their remaining colonies was
   harassed and intercepted; their commerce with the independent
   Indian states, with China and with Japan, was here injured and
   there partially destroyed, by the enterprising merchants and
   mariners of Holland; whilst at home the privileges secured to
   them as the price of their submission, were hourly, if not
   flagrantly, violated by their Spanish masters. The illegal
   imposition of a new tax by the king's sole authority, in 1637,
   had provoked a partial revolt in the southern provinces, where
   the duke of Braganza, grandson of Catherine [whose right to
   the throne was forcibly put aside by Philip II. of Spain in
   1580,—see, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580], was proclaimed king. He
   refused the proffered dignity, and assisted in quelling the
   rebellion. He was thanked by Philip and at once recompensed,
   and, as it was hoped, ensnared, by an appointment to be
   general–in-chief of Portugal. But the flame was smothered, not
   extinguished. … The vice-queen, Margaret, duchess-dowager of
   Mantua, a daughter of Philip II.'s youngest daughter,
   Catherine, saw the gathering tempest, and forewarned the court
   of Madrid of the impending danger. Her information was
   treated, like herself, with contempt by Olivarez. One measure,
   however, he took, probably in consequence; and that one
   finally decided the hesitating conspirators to delay no
   longer. He ordered a large body of troops to be raised in
   Portugal, the nobles to arm their vassals, and all, under the
   conduct of the duke of Braganza, to hasten into Spain, in
   order to attend the king, who was about to march in person
   against the rebellious Catalans.
{2575}
   Olivarez hoped thus at once to overwhelm Catalonia and
   Roussillon, and to take from Portugal the power of revolting,
   by securing the intended leader, and draining the country of
   the warlike portion of its population. The nobles perceived
   the object of this command, and resolved to avoid compliance
   by precipitating their measures. Upon the 12th of October,
   1640, they assembled to the number of 40 at the house of Don
   Antonio d' Almeida. At this meeting they determined to recover
   their independence, and dispatched Don Pedro de Mendoza as
   their deputy, to offer the crown and their allegiance to the
   duke of Braganza, who had remained quietly upon his principal
   estate at Villa Viçosa. The duke hesitated, alarmed, perhaps,
   at the importance of the irrevocable step he was called upon
   to take. But his high-spirited duchess, a daughter of the
   Spanish duke of Medina-Sidonia, observing to him, that a
   wretched and dishonourable death certainly awaited him at
   Madrid; at Lisbon, as certainly glory, whether in life or
   death, decided his acceptance. Partisans were gained on all
   sides, especially in the municipality of Lisbon; and the
   secret was faithfully kept, for several weeks, by at least 500
   persons of both sexes, and all ranks. During this interval,
   the duke of Braganza remained at Villa Viçosa, lest his
   appearance at Lisbon should excite suspicion; and it seems
   that, however clearly the vice-queen had perceived the
   threatening aspect of affairs, neither she nor her ministers
   entertained any apprehension of the plot actually organized.
   The 1st of December was the day appointed for the
   insurrection. Early in the morning the conspirators approached
   the palace in four well-armed bands," and easily mastered the
   guard. From the windows of the palace they "proclaimed liberty
   and John IV." to a great concourse of people who had speedily
   assembled. Finding Vasconcellos, the obnoxious secretary to
   'the vice–queen, hidden in a closet, they slew him and flung
   his body into the street. The vice-queen, seeing herself
   helpless, submitted to the popular will and signed mandates
   addressed to the Spanish governors and other officers
   commanding castles and fortifications in Portugal, requiring
   their surrender. "The archbishop of Lisbon was next appointed
   royal-lieutenant. He immediately dispatched intelligence of
   the event to the new king, and sent messengers to every part
   of Portugal with orders for the proclamation of John IV., and
   the seizure of all Spaniards. … Obedience was prompt and
   general. … John was crowned on the 15th of December, and
   immediately abolished the heavy taxes imposed by the king of
   Spain, declaring that, for his own private expenses, he
   required nothing beyond his patrimonial estates. He summoned
   the Cortes to assemble in January, when the three estates of
   the kingdom solemnly confirmed his proclamation as king, or
   'acclamation,' as the Portugueze term it. … In the islands, in
   the African settlements, with the single exception of Ceuta,
   which adhered to Spain, and in what remained of Brazil and
   India, King John was proclaimed, the moment intelligence of
   the revolution arrived, the Spaniards scarcely any where
   attempting to resist. … In Europe, the new king was readily
   acknowledged by all the states at war with the house of
   Austria." The first attempts made by the Spanish court to
   regain its lost authority in Portugal took chiefly the form of
   base conspiracies for the assassination of the new king. War
   ensued, but the "languid and desultory hostilities produced
   little effect beyond harassing the frontiers. Portugal was
   weak, and thought only of self-defence; Spain was chiefly
   intent upon chastizing the Catalans." The war was prolonged,
   in fact, until 1668, when it was terminated by a treaty which
   recognized the independence of Portugal, but ceded Ceuta to
   Spain. The only considerable battles of the long war were
   those of Estremos, or Ameixal, in 1663, and Villa Viçosa,
   1665, in which the Portuguese were victors, and which were
   practically decisive of the war.

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 2, chapters 10-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Dunlap,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1702.
   Joins the Grand Alliance against France and Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.
   The Methuen Treaty with England.

   Portugal joined the Grand Alliance against France and Spain,
   in the War of the Spanish Succession, in 1703, and entered at
   that time into an important treaty with England. This is known
   as the Methuen Treaty—"called after the name of the ambassador
   who negotiated it—and that treaty, and its effect upon the
   commerce of England and the habits of her people lasted
   through five generations, even to the present time. The wines
   of Portugal were to be admitted upon the payment of a duty 33½
   per cent. less than the duty paid upon French wines; and the
   woolen cloths of England, which had been prohibited in
   Portugal for twenty years, were to be admitted upon terms of
   proportionate advantage. Up to that time the Claret of France
   had been the beverage of the wine-drinkers of England. From
   1703 Port established itself as what Defoe calls 'our general
   draught.' In all commercial negotiations with France the
   Methuen Treaty stood in the way; for the preferential duty was
   continued till 1831. France invariably pursued a system of
   retaliation. It was a point of patriotism for the Englishman
   to hold firm to his Port."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 5, chapter 17._

      See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1713.
   Possessions in South America confirmed.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1757-1759.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits and suppression of the order.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
   Napoleon's designs against the kingdom.
   His delusive treaty for its partition with Spain.
   French invasion and flight of the royal family to Brazil.

   "One of the first steps taken by Napoleon, after his return to
   Paris, … [after the Peace of Tilsit-see GERMANY: A. D. 1807
   (JUNE-JULY)] was, in the month of August, to order the French
   and Spanish ambassadors conjointly, to declare to the
   prince–regent of Portugal, that he must concur in the
   continental system, viz. shut his ports against English
   commerce, confiscate all English property, and imprison all
   English subjects to be found within his dominions, or they
   were instructed immediately to leave Lisbon.
{2576}
   The prince and his ministers dared not openly resist the
   French emperor's will, even whilst the wiser part of the
   cabinet were convinced that the very existence of the country
   depended upon British commerce. In this extremity, and relying
   upon the friendly forbearance of England, they strove to
   pursue a middle course. Don John professed his readiness to
   exclude British ships of all descriptions from his ports, but
   declared that his religious principles would not allow him to
   seize the subjects and property of a friendly state in the
   midst of peace, and that prudence forbade his offending
   England until a Portugueze squadron, then at sea, should have
   returned safely home. … Napoleon punished this imperfect
   obedience, by seizing all Portugueze vessels in ports under
   his control, and ordering the French and Spanish legations to
   leave Lisbon. The Portugueze ambassadors were, at the same
   time, dismissed from Paris and Madrid. A French army was, by
   this time, assembled near the foot of the Pyrenees, bearing
   the singular title of army of observation of the Gironde; and
   General Junot … was appointed to its command. … Spain was
   endeavouring to share in the spoil, not to protect the victim.
   A treaty, the shameless iniquity of which can be paralleled
   only by the treaties between Austria, Russia, and Prussia for
   the partition of Poland, had been signed at Fontainebleau, on
   the 27th of October. … By this treaty Charles surrendered to
   Napoleon his infant grandson's kingdom of Etruria (King Louis
   I. had been dead some years), over which he had no right
   whatever, and bargained to receive for him in its stead the
   small northern provinces of Portugal, Entre Minho e Douro and
   Tras os Montes, under the name of the kingdom of Northern
   Lusitania, which kingdom the young monarch was to hold in
   vassalage of the crown of Spain. The much larger southern
   provinces, Alemtejo and Algarve, were to constitute the
   principality of the Algarves, for Godoy, under a similar
   tenure. And the middle provinces were to be occupied by
   Napoleon until a general peace, when, in exchange for
   Gibraltar, Trinidad, and any other Spanish possession
   conquered by England, they might be restored to the family of
   Braganza, upon like terms of dependence. The Portugueze
   colonies were to be equally divided between France and Spain.
   In execution of this nefarious treaty, 10,000 Spanish troops
   were to seize upon the northern, and 6,000 upon the southern
   state. … On the 18th of October, Junot, in obedience to his
   master's orders, crossed the Pyrenees, and, being kindly
   received by the Spaniards, began his march towards the
   Portugueze frontiers, whilst the Spanish troops were equally
   put in motion towards their respective destinations. … The
   object of so much haste was, to secure the persons of the
   royal family, whose removal to Brazil had not only been talked
   of from the beginning of these hostile discussions, but was
   now in preparation, and matter of public notoriety. … The
   reckless haste enjoined by the emperor, and which cost almost
   as many lives as a pitched battle, was very near attaining its
   end. … The resolution to abandon the contest being adopted,
   the prince and his ministers took every measure requisite to
   prevent a useless effusion of blood. A regency, consisting of
   five persons, the marquess of Abrantes being president, was
   appointed to conduct the government, and negotiate with Junot.
   On the 26th a proclamation was put forth, explaining to the
   people that, as Napoleon's enmity was rather to the sovereign
   than the nation, the prince-regent, in order to avert the
   calamities of war from his faithful subjects, would transfer
   the seat of government to Brazil, till the existing troubles
   should subside, and strictly charging the Portugueze, more
   especially the Lisbonians, to receive the French as friends.
   On the 27th the whole royal family proceeded to Belem, to
   embark for flight, on the spot whence, about three centuries
   back, Vasco de Gama had sailed upon his glorious enterprise. …
   The ships set sail and crossed the bar, almost as the French
   advance guard was entering Lisbon. Sir Sidney Smith escorted
   the royal family, with four men-of-war, safely to Rio Janeiro,
   the capital of Brazil, leaving the remainder of his squadron
   to blockade the mouth of the Tagus."

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 4, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1800-1815,
      chapter 52._

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 2 (volume l)._

      See, also, BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
   Rising against the French.
   Arrival of British forces.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1808.
   Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
   The Convention of Cintra.
   French evacuation of Portugal.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809 (February-December).
   Wellington's retreat and fresh advance.
   The French checked.
   Passage of the Douro.
   Battle of Talavera.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY);
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1809-1812.
   Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
   French invasion and retreat.
   English advance into Spain.

      See SPAIN: A.D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1810-1812.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1814.
   End of the Peninsular War.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.
   Revolution and Absolutist reaction.
   Separation and independence of Brazil.

   "Ever since 1807 Portugal had not known a court. On the first
   threat of French invasion the Regent had emigrated to the
   Brazils, and he had since lived and ruled entirely in the
   great Transatlantic colony. The ordinary conditions of other
   countries had been reversed. Portugal had virtually become a
   dependency of her own colony. The absence of the court was a
   sore trial to the pride of the Portuguese. An absent court had
   few supporters. It happened, too, that its ablest defender had
   lately left the country. … In April 1820 [Marshal] Beresford
   sailed for the Brazils. He did not return till the following
   October; and the revolution had been completed before his
   return. On the 24th of August the troops at Oporto determined
   on establishing a constitutional government, and appointed a
   provisional Junta with this object. The Regency which
   conducted the affairs of the country at Lisbon denounced the
   movement as a nefarious conspiracy. But, however nefarious the
   conspiracy might be, the defection of the army was so general
   that resistance became impossible. On the 1st of September the
   Regency issued a proclamation promising to convene the Cortes.
{2577}
   The promise, however, did not stop the progress of the
   insurrection. The Junta which had been constituted at Oporto
   marched at the head of the troops upon Lisbon. The troops at
   Lisbon and in the south of Portugal threw off their
   allegiance, and established a Junta of their own. The Junta at
   Lisbon were, for the moment, in favour of milder measures than
   the Junta of Oporto. But the advocates of the more extreme
   course won their ends. The Oporto troops, surrounding the two
   Juntas, which had been blended together, compelled them to
   adopt the Spanish constitution; in other words, to sanction
   the election of one deputy to the Cortes for every 30,000
   persons inhabiting the country. … When the revolution of 1820
   had occurred John VI., King of Portugal, was quietly ruling in
   his transatlantic dominions of Brazil. Portugal had been
   governed for thirteen years from Rio de Janeiro; and the
   absence of the Court from Lisbon had offended the Portuguese
   and prepared them for change. After the mischief had been done
   John VI. was persuaded to return to his native country,
   leaving his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of Brazil in his
   absence. Before setting out on his journey he gave the prince
   public instructions for his guidance, which practically made
   Brazil independent of Portugal; and he added private
   directions to the prince, in case any emergency should arise
   which should make it impracticable to preserve Brazil for
   Portugal, to place the crown on his own head, and thus save
   the great Transatlantic territory for the House of Braganza.
   Leaving these parting injunctions with his son, John VI.
   returned to the old kingdom which he had deserted nearly
   fourteen years before. He reached Lisbon, and found the
   Constitutionalists in undisputed possession of power. He found
   also that the action of the Constitutionalists in Portugal was
   calculated to induce Brazil to throw off the authority of the
   mother country. The Cortes in Portugal insisted on the
   suppression of the supreme tribunals in Brazil, on the
   establishment of Provincial Juntas, and on the return of the
   Regent to Portugal. The Brazilians declined to adopt measures
   which they considered ruinous to their dignity, and persuaded
   the Regent to disobey the orders of the Cortes. A small body
   of Portuguese troops quartered in Brazil endeavoured to
   overawe the prince, but proved powerless to do so. In May 1822
   the prince was persuaded to declare himself Perpetual Defender
   of the Brazils. In the following September the Brazilians
   induced him to raise their country to the dignity of an
   empire, and to declare himself its constitutional emperor. The
   news that the Brazilians had declared themselves an
   independent empire reached Europe at a critical period.
   Monarchs and diplomatists were busily deliberating at Verona
   on the affairs of Spain and of the Spanish colonies. No one,
   however, could avoid comparing the position of Portugal and
   Brazil with that of Spain and her dependencies. … The evident
   determination of France to interfere in Spain created anxiety
   in Portugal. The Portuguese Cortes apprehended that the
   logical consequence of French interference in the one country
   was French interference in the other. … The position of a
   French army on the Spanish frontier roused the dormant spirits
   of the Portuguese Absolutists. In February 1823 a vast
   insurrection against the Constitution broke out in Northern
   Portugal. The insurgents, who in the first instance obtained
   considerable success, were with difficulty defeated. But the
   revolt had been hardly quelled before the Absolutists
   recovered their flagging spirits. Every step taken by the Duc
   d' Angoulême in his progress from the Bidassoa to Madrid [see
   SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827] raised their hopes of ultimate
   success. The king's second son, the notorious Dom Miguel, fled
   from his father's palace and threw in his lot with the
   insurgents. For a moment the king stood firm and denounced his
   son's proceedings. But the reaction which had set in was too
   strong to be resisted. The Cortes was closed, a new Ministry
   appointed, and autocracy re-established in Portugal. The
   re-establishment of autocracy in Portugal marked the
   commencement of a series of intrigues in which this country
   [England] was deeply interested. One party in the new
   Government, with M. de Palmella at its head, was disposed to
   incline to moderate measures and to listen to the advice which
   it received from the British Ministry and from the British
   Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton. Another party, of which M. de
   Subsérra was the representative, was in favour of an intimate
   union with France, and ready to listen to the contrary
   counsels of M. de Neuville, the French Minister at Lisbon. M.
   de Palmella, despairing of founding a settled form of
   government amidst the disorders which surrounded him on every
   side, applied to the British Ministry for troops to give
   stability to the Administration. The demand arrived in London
   in July 1823. … The demand for troops was refused, but a
   British squadron was sent to the Tagus, with a view of
   affording the King of Portugal the moral support of the
   British nation and a secure asylum in the event of any danger
   to his person. Many months elapsed before the King of Portugal
   had occasion to avail himself of the possible asylum which was
   thus afforded to him. … The evident leanings of M. de Palmella
   towards moderate measures, however, alarmed the Portuguese
   Absolutists. Ever since the revolution of 1823 Dom Miguel had
   held the command of the army; and, on the night of the 29th of
   April, 1824, the prince suddenly ordered the arrest of the
   leading personages of the Government, and, under the pretext
   of suppressing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons, called on
   the army to liberate their king, and to complete the triumph
   of the previous year. For nine days the king was a mere puppet
   in the hands of his son, and Dom Miguel was virtually master
   of Lisbon. On the 9th of May the king was persuaded by the
   foreign ministers in his capital to resume his authority; to
   retire on board the 'Windsor Castle,' a British man-of-war; to
   dismiss Dom Miguel from his command, and to order his
   attendance upon him. The prince, 'stricken with a sudden
   futuity,' obeyed his father's commands, and was prevailed upon
   to go into voluntary exile. The revolution of 1824 terminated
   with his departure, and Portugal again enjoyed comparative
   tranquillity."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 18._

      See, also, BRAZIL: A.D. 1808-1822.

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1822.
   The independence of Brazil proclaimed and established.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

{2578}

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.
   Return of John VI. to Brazil.
   Abdication of the Portuguese throne by Dom Pedro,
   after granting a constitution.
   Usurpation of Dom Miguel.
   Civil war and factious conflicts.
   Establishment of Parliamentary government, and Peace.

   "At the close of 1824 the king returned to Brazil to spend his
   last days in peace. On reaching Rio de Janeiro, he recognized
   Dom Pedro as Emperor of Brazil, and on the 6th of March, 1826,
   John VI. died in the country of his choice. By his will, John
   VI. left the regency of Portugal to his daughter Isabel Maria,
   to the disgust of Dom Miguel, who had fully expected in spite
   of his conduct that Portugal would be in some manner
   bequeathed to him, and that Dom Pedro would be satisfied with
   the government of Brazil. The next twenty-five years are the
   saddest in the whole history of Portugal. The establishment of
   the system of parliamentary government, which now exists, was
   a long and difficult task. … The keynote of the whole series
   of disturbances is to be found in the pernicious influence of
   the army. … The army was disproportionately large for the size
   and revenue of the country; there was no foreign or colonial
   war to occupy its energies, and the soldiers would not return
   to the plough nor the officers retire into private life. The
   English Cabinet at this juncture determined to maintain peace
   and order, and in 1826, a division of 5,000 men was sent under
   the command of Lieutenant-General Sir William Clinton to
   garrison the chief towns. The accession of Pedro IV. to the
   throne was hailed with joy in Portugal, though looked on with
   suspicion in Brazil. He justified his reputation by drawing up
   a charter, containing the bases for a moderate parliamentary
   government of the English type, which he sent over to
   Portugal, by the English diplomatist, Lord Stuart de Rothesay.
   Then to please his Brazilian subjects, he abdicated the throne
   of Portugal in favour of his daughter, Donna Maria da Gloria,
   a child of seven years old, on condition that on attaining a
   suitable age she should marry her uncle, Dom Miguel, who was
   to swear to observe the new constitution. The Charter of 1826
   was thankfully received by the moderate parliamentary party;
   Clinton's division was withdrawn; Palmella remained prime
   minister; and in the following year, 1827, Dom Pedro destroyed
   the effect of his wise measures by appointing Dom Miguel to be
   regent of Portugal in the name of the little queen. Dom Miguel
   was an ambitious prince, who believed that he ought to be king
   of Portugal; he was extremely popular with the old nobility,
   the clergy, and the army, with all who disliked liberal ideas,
   and with the beggars and the poor who were under the influence
   of the mendicant orders. He was declared Regent in July, 1827,
   and in May, 1828, he summoned a Cortes of the ancient type,
   such as had not met since 1697, which under the presidency of
   the Bishop of Viseu offered him the throne of Portugal. He
   accepted, and immediately exiled all the leaders of the
   parliamentary, or, as it is usually called, the Chartist,
   party, headed by Palmella, Saldanha, Villa Flor, and Sampaio.
   They naturally fled to England, where the young queen was
   stopping on her way to be educated at the court of Vienna, and
   found popular opinion strongly in their favour. But the Duke
   of Wellington and his Tory Cabinet refused to countenance or
   assist them. … Meanwhile the reign of Dom Miguel had become a
   Reign of Terror; arrests and executions were frequent;
   thousands were deported to Africa, and in 1830 it was
   estimated that 40,000 persons were in prison for political
   offences. He ruled in absolute contempt of all law, and at
   different times English, French, and American fleets entered
   the Tagus to demand reparation for damage done to commerce, or
   for the illegal arrest of foreigners. The result of this
   conduct was that the country was hopelessly ruined, and the
   chartist and radical parties, who respectively advocated the
   Charter of 1826 and the Constitution of 1822, agreed to sink
   their differences, and to oppose the bigoted tyrant. … Dom
   Pedro, who had devoted his life to the cause of parliamentary
   government, resigned his crown in 1831 [see BRAZIL: A. D.
   1825-1865] to his infant son, and left Brazil to head the
   movement for his daughter's cause. … In July, 1832, the
   ex-emperor with an army of 7,500 men arrived at Oporto, where
   he was enthusiastically welcomed, and Dom Miguel then laid
   siege to the city. European opinion was divided between the
   two parties; partisans of freedom and of constitutional
   government called the Miguelites 'slaves of a tyrant,' while
   lovers of absolutism, alluding to the loans raised by the
   ex-emperor, used to speak of the 'stock-jobbing Pedroites.'
   The siege was long and protracted." The Miguelites finally
   sustained several heavy defeats, both on land and at sea, and
   Lisbon was triumphantly entered by the Chartists in July,
   1833. "The year 1834 was one of unbroken success for the
   Chartists. England and France recognized Maria da Gloria as
   Queen of Portugal, and the ministry of Queen Isabella of
   Spain, knowing Dom Miguel to be a Carlist, sent two Spanish
   armies under Generals Rodil and Serrano to the help of Dom
   Pedro. … Finally the combined Spanish and Portuguese armies
   surrounded the remnant of the Miguelites at Evora Monte, and
   on the 26th of May, 1834, Dom Miguel surrendered. By the
   Convention of Evora Monte, Dom Miguel abandoned his claim to
   the throne of Portugal, and in consideration of a pension of
   £15,000 a year promised never again to set foot in the
   kingdom. … Dom Pedro, who had throughout the struggle been the
   heart and soul of his daughter's party, had thus the pleasure
   of seeing the country at peace, and a regular parliamentary
   system in operation, but he did not long survive, for on the
   24th of September, 1834, he died at Queluz near Lisbon, of an
   illness brought on by his great labours and fatigues, leaving
   a name, which deserves all honour from Portuguese and
   Brazilians alike. Queen Maria da Gloria was only fifteen, when
   she thus lost the advantage of her father's wise counsel and
   steady help, yet it might have been expected that her reign
   would be calm and prosperous. But neither the queen, the
   nobility, nor the people, understood the principles of
   parliamentary government. … The whole reign was one of violent
   party struggles, for they hardly deserve to be called civil
   wars, so little did they involve, which present a striking
   contrast to the peaceable constitutional government that at
   present prevails. … In 1852 the Charter was revised to suit
   all parties; direct voting, one of the chief claims of the
   radicals, was allowed, and the era of civil war came to an
   end.
{2579}
   Maria da Gloria did not long survive this peaceful settlement,
   for she died on the 15th of November, 1853, and her husband
   the King-Consort, Ferdinand II, assumed the regency until his
   eldest son Pedro V. should come of age. The era of peaceful
   parliamentary government, which succeeded the stormy reign of
   Maria II., has been one of material prosperity for Portugal. …
   The whole country, and especially the city of Lisbon, was
   during this reign, on account of the neglect of all sanitary
   precautions, ravaged by cholera and yellow fever, and it was
   in the midst of one of these outbreaks, on the 11th of
   November, 1861, that Pedro V., who had refused to leave his
   pestilence-stricken capital, died of cholera, and was followed
   to the grave by two of his younger brothers, Dom Ferdinand and
   Dom John. At the time of Pedro's death, his next brother and
   heir, Dom Luis, was travelling on the continent, and his
   father, Ferdinand II., who long survived Queen Maria da Gloria
   … assumed the regency until his return; soon after which King
   Luis married Maria Pia, younger daughter of Victor Emmanuel,
   king of Italy. … The reign of King Luis was prosperous and
   peaceful, and the news of his death on October 9, 1889, was
   received with general regret. … Luis I. was succeeded on the
   throne by his elder son, Dom Carlos, or Charles I., a young
   man of twenty-six, who married in 1886, the Princess Marie
   Amélie de Bourbon, the eldest daughter of the Comte de Paris.
   His accession was immediately followed by the revolution of
   the 15th of November, 1889, in Brazil, by which his great
   uncle, Pedro II., Emperor of Brazil, was dethroned and a
   republican government established in that country."

      _H. M. Stephens,
      The Story of Portugal,
      chapter 18._

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bollaert,
      Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain,
      volume 1._

PORTUGAL: A. D. 1884-1889.
   Territorial claims in Africa.
   The Berlin Conference.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   ----------PORTUGAL: End--------

PORTUS AUGUSTI AND PORTUS TRAJANI.

      See OSTIA.

PORTUS CALE.

   The ancient name of
Oporto, whence came, also, the name of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

PORTUS ITIUS.

   The port on the French coast from which Cæsar sailed on both
   his expeditions to Britain. Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Witsand and
   Calais have all contended for the honor of representing it in
   modern geography; but the serious question seems to be between
   Boulogne and Witsand, or Wissant.

      _T. Lewin,
      Invasion of Britain._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, appendix 1._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 7._

PORTUS LEMANIS.

   An important Roman port in Britain, at the place which still
   preserves its name—Lymne.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

PORTUS MAGNUS.

   An important Roman port in Britain, the massive walls of which
   are still seen at Porchester (or Portchester).

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

POST.
POSTAGE.
POST–OFFICE.

   "The little that is known of the post-system of the [Roman]
   empire is summed up in a few words in Becker's 'Handbuch,'
   iii. i. 304: 'The institution of Augustus, which became the
   basis of the later System known to us from the writings of the
   Jurists, consisted of a military service which forwarded
   official despatches from station to station by couriers,
   called in the earlier imperial period speculatories. (Liv.
   xxxi. 24.; Suet. Calig. 44.; Tac. Hist. ii. 73.) Personal
   conveyance was confined (as in the time of the republic) to
   officials: for this purpose the mutationes (posts) and
   mansiones (night quarters) were assigned, and even palatia
   erected at the latter for the use of governors and the emperor
   himself. Private individuals could take advantage of these
   state posts within the provinces by a special license
   (diploma) of the governor, and at a later period of the
   emperor only.' Under the republic senators and high personages
   could obtain the posts for their private use, as a matter of
   privilege."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 34 (volume 4), foot-note._

   "According to Professor Friedländer in his interesting work,
   'Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschiehte Roms,' great progress
   was made by the Romans, in the fourth and fifth centuries, in
   their method of postal communication. Their excellent roads
   enabled them to establish rapid mule and horse posts as well
   as carts, and it is even stated that special 'postal ships'
   (Post schiffe) were kept in readiness at the principal
   sea-ports. These advanced postal arrangements, like many other
   traces of Roman civilization, survived longest in Gaul; but
   even there the barbarism of the people, and the constant wars
   in which they were engaged, gradually extinguished, first the
   necessity, and then, as a natural consequence, the means of
   postal communication, until we find, at a much later period,
   all European countries alike, for lack of any organized
   system, making use of pilgrims, friars, pedlars, and others,
   to convey their correspondence from one place to another. The
   first attempt of any importance, to rescue postal
   communication from the well-nigh hopeless condition into which
   it had for centuries fallen, was made in Germany in 1380, by
   the order of Teutonic Knights, who established properly
   equipped post-messengers for home and international service.
   An improvement and extension of this plan was carried out by
   Francis von Thaxis in the year 1516, when a postal line from
   Brussels to Vienna, via Kreuznach, was established. It is true
   that, shortly before this, there is some record of Louis XI.
   of France having started, for State postal purposes, what were
   termed cavaliers du roy; but these were only allowed to be
   used for private purposes by privileged individuals, part of
   whose privilege, by the way, consisted in paying to Louis an
   enormous fee. It is to Francis von Thaxis that must be
   accorded the title of the first postal reformer. So eager was
   his interest in the work he had undertaken, that, in order to
   gain the right of territorial transit through several of the
   small states of Germany where his plans were strongly opposed,
   he actually agreed for a time to carry the people's letters
   free of charge, an instance of generosity, for a parallel of
   which we look in vain in the history of the Post Office. The
   mantle of this reformer seems, strangely enough, to have
   fallen in turn upon many of his descendants, who not only in
   Germany, but also in Spain, Austria, Holland, and other
   countries, obtained concessions for carrying on the useful
   work started by Francis von Thaxis.
{2580}
   One of the Thaxis family, at a later date, was created a
   prince of Germany, and took the name of Thurm und Taxis; and
   from him is descended the princely line bearing that name
   which flourishes at the present day. Another member of the
   family was created a grandee of Spain, and has the honor of
   being immortalized by Schiller in his 'Don Carlos.' The first
   establishment of an organized system of postal communication
   in England is wrapt in some obscurity. During the reign of
   John post-messengers were, for the first time, employed by the
   king; these messengers were called nuncii; and in the time of
   Henry I. these nuncii were also found in the service of some
   of the barons. In Henry III.'s reign they had so far become a
   recognized institution of the State that they were clothed in
   the royal livery. Mr. Lewins, in his interesting work, 'Her
   Majesty's Mails,' states that several private letters are
   still in existence, dating back as far as the reign of Edward
   II., which bear the appearance of having been carried by the
   nuncii of that period, with 'Haste, post haste!' written
   across them. … Edward IV., towards the end of the fifteenth
   century, during the time that he was engaged in war with
   Scotland, had the stations for postal relays placed within a
   few miles of each other all the way from London to the royal
   camp, and by this means managed to get his despatches carried
   nearly a hundred miles a day. … No improvement is recorded in
   the postal service in this country from the period last
   referred to until the reign of Henry VIII. This king, we are
   told, appointed a 'master of the posts,' in the person of Sir
   Brian Tuke, who really seems to have made great efforts to
   exercise a proper control over the horse-posts, and to bring
   some sort of organization to bear on his department. Poor
   Tuke, however, was not rewarded with much success. … James I.
   established a regular post for inland letters, and Charles I.,
   recognizing, no doubt, the financial importance of the Post
   Office, declared it in 1637, by royal proclamation, to be
   State property. It was, however, during the Protectorate,
   twenty years later, that the first act of Parliament relating
   to the formation of a State Post Office was passed. This
   statute was entitled, 'An Act for the settling of the postage
   of England, Scotland, and Ireland.' … The first trace which
   can be found of a regular tariff of postal charges is in the
   reign of Charles I., and even regarded by the light of to-day
   these charges cannot be held to be exorbitant; for example, a
   single letter from London, for any distance under eighty
   miles, was charged twopence; fourpence up to one hundred and
   forty miles; sixpence for any greater distance in England, and
   eightpence to all parts of Scotland."

      _Postal Communication, Past and Present
      (National Review; copied in Littell's Living Age,
      July 30, 1887)._

   "A penny post was established in London, in 1683, two years
   before the death of Charles II., for the conveyance of letters
   and parcels within the City, by Robert Murray, an upholsterer
   by trade, who, like a great many others, was dissatisfied with
   the Government, which, in its anxiety to provide for the
   postal requirements of the country, had entirely neglected the
   City and suburbs. The post, established by Murray at a vast
   expense, was ultimately handed over to a William Docwray,
   whose name is now well known in the annals of Post Office
   history. The arrangements of the new penny post were simple,
   and certainly liberal enough. All letters or parcels not
   exceeding a pound weight, or any sum of money not exceeding
   £10 in value, or parcel not worth more than £10, could be
   conveyed at a cost of one penny; or within a radius of ten
   miles from a given centre, for the charge of twopence. Several
   district offices were opened in various parts of London, and
   receiving houses were freely established in all the leading
   thoroughfares. … The deliveries in the City were from six to
   eight daily, while from three to four were found sufficient to
   supply the wants of the suburbs. The public appreciated and
   supported the new venture, and it soon became a great
   commercial success, useful to the citizens, and profitable to
   the proprietor. No sooner, however, did a knowledge of this
   fact reach the ears of those in authority over the General
   Post Office, than the Duke of York, acting under instructions,
   and by virtue of the settlement made to him, objected to its
   being continued, on the ground that it was an invasion of his
   legal rights. … The authorities … applied to the court of
   King's Bench, wherein it was decided that the new or so-called
   penny post was an infraction of the privileges of the
   authorities of the General Post Office, and the royal
   interest, and that consequently it, with all its organization,
   profits, and advantages, should be handed over to, and remain
   the property of, the royal establishment. … Post-paid
   envelopes were in use in France in the time of Louis XIV.
   Pelisson states that they originated in 1653 with M. de
   Velayer, who established, under royal authority, a private
   penny-post in Paris. He placed boxes at the corners of the
   principal streets to receive the letters, which were obliged
   to be enclosed in these envelopes. They were suggested to the
   Government by Mr. Charles Whiting in 1830, and the eminent
   publisher, the late Mr. Charles Knight, also proposed stamped
   covers for papers. Dr. T. E. Gray, of the British Museum,
   claimed the credit of suggesting that letters should be
   prepaid by the use of stamps as early as 1834."

      _W. Tegg,
      Posts and Telegraphs,
      pages 21-23 and 100-101._

   "On the morning of the 10th of January, 1840, the people of
   the United Kingdom rose in the possession of a new power—the
   power of sending by the post a letter not weighing more than
   half an ounce upon the prepayment of one penny, and this
   without any regard to the distance which the letter had to
   travel. … To the sagacity and the perseverance of one man, the
   author of this system, the high praise is due, not so much
   that he triumphed over the petty jealousies and selfish fears
   of the post-office authorities, but that he established his
   own convictions against the doubts of some of the ablest and
   most conscientious leaders of public opinion. … Mr. Rowland
   Hill in 1837 published his plan of a cheap and uniform
   postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in
   1837, which, continued its inquiries throughout the session of
   1838, and arrived at the conviction that 'the mode recommended
   of charging and collecting postage, in a pamphlet published by
   Mr. Rowland Hill,' was feasible, and deserving of a trial
   under legislative sanction. … Lord Ashburton, although an
   advocate of Post-office Reform, held that the reduction to a
   penny would wholly destroy the revenue. Lord Lowther, the
   Postmaster-General, thought twopence the smallest rate that
   would cover the expenses.
{2581}
   Colonel Maberly, the secretary to the post office, considered
   Mr. Hill's plan a most preposterous one, and maintained that
   if the rates were to be reduced to a penny, the revenue would
   not recover itself for forty or fifty years. … Public opinion,
   however, had been brought so strongly to bear in favour of a
   penny rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring
   Rice, on the 5th of July, 1839, proposed a resolution, 'that
   it is expedient to reduce the postage on letters to one
   uniform rate of a penny postage, according to a certain amount
   of weight to be determined—that the parliamentary privilege
   of franking should be abolished, and that official franking be
   strictly limited—the House pledging itself to make good any
   deficiency that may occur in the revenue from such reduction
   of the postage.' A Bill was accordingly passed to this effect
   in the House of Commons, its operation being limited in its
   duration to one year, and the Treasury retaining the power of
   fixing the rates at first, although the ultimate reduction was
   to be to one penny. This experimental measure reduced all
   rates above fourpence to that sum, leaving those below
   fourpence unaltered. With this complication of charge the
   experiment could not have a fair trial, and accordingly on the
   10th of January, 1840, the uniform half-ounce rate became by
   order of the Treasury one penny. … In 1840 the number of
   letters sent through the post had more than doubled, and the
   legislature had little hesitation in making the Act of 1839
   permanent, instead of its duration being limited to the year
   which would expire in October. A stamped envelope, printed
   upon a peculiar paper, and bearing an elaborate design, was
   originally chosen as the mode of rendering prepayment
   convenient to the sender of a letter. A simpler plan soon
   superseded this attempt to enlist the Fine Arts in a plain
   business operation. The plan of prepaying letters by affixing
   a stamp bearing the head of the ruler of the country, came
   into use here in May, 1840 [see, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1840].
   The habit of prepayment by postage stamps has now become so
   universal throughout the world, that in 1861 the system was
   established in eighty different countries or colonies."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 8, chapter 24._

   The first postal system in the American colonies was privately
   established in New England in 1676, by John Heyward, under
   authority from the General Court of the colony of
   Massachusetts. "In 1683 the government of Penn established a
   postal system for the Colony of Pennsylvania. In 1700 Colonel
   J. Hamilton organized 'his postal establishment for British
   America' including all the English colonies, but soon after
   disposed of his right to the English crown. In 1710 the
   English Parliament established by law the first governmental
   postal system with the general office at New York, which
   continued until in 1776 the Continental Congress adopted and
   set in action the postal system proposed by Franklin, who was
   appointed the first Postmaster General. The first law of the
   Federal Congress continued this system in operation as
   sufficient for the public wants, but the postal service was
   not finally settled until the act of 1792. This law (1792)
   fixed a tariff which with unimportant changes remained in
   force until the adoption of the system of Uniform Postage in
   the United States. Single, double and triple letters were
   charged 8, 16 and 24 cents respectively when sent to other
   countries, and four cents plus the internal postage when
   arriving from foreign countries. The internal postage between
   offices in the United States was 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 20, 22 and
   25 cents for distances of 30, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, or
   400 miles respectively for single letters, and double, triple,
   etc., this for double, triple, etc. letters. A single letter
   was defined by the law to be a single sheet or piece of paper,
   a double letter, two sheets or pieces of paper, etc. … The
   earliest letters which we have seen, consist of single sheets
   of paper folded and addressed upon the sheet. An envelope
   would have subjected them to double postage."

      _J. K. Tiffany,
      History of the Postage Stamps,
      introduction._

   By an act of March 3, 1845, the postage rates in the United
   States were reduced to two—namely, 5 cents for 300 miles or
   under, and 10 cents for longer distances. Six years later
   (March 3, 1851) the minimum rate for half an ounce became 3
   cents (if prepaid) with the distance covered by it extended to
   3,000 miles; if not prepaid, 5 cents. For distances beyond
   3,000 miles, these rates were doubled. In 1856 prepayment was
   made compulsory; and by an act signed March 3, 1863, the 3
   cent rate for half–ounce letters was extended to all distances
   in the United States.

      _J. Rees,
      Footprints of a Letter-Carrier,
      page 264._

   In 1883 the rate in the United States was reduced to 2 cents
   for all distances, on letters not exceeding half an ounce. In
   1885 the weight of a letter transmissible for 2 cents was
   increased to one ounce. The use of postage stamps was first
   introduced in the United States under an act of Congress
   passed in March, 1847. Stamped envelopes were first provided
   in 1853. The first issue of postal cards was on the 1st of
   May, 1873, under an act approved June 8, 1872. The registry
   system was adopted July 1, 1855. Free delivery of letters in
   the larger cities was first undertaken on the 1st of July
   1863.

      _D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Annual Report of the Postmaster-General
      of the United States, 1893,
      pages 543-558
      (Description of all Postage Stamps and
      Postal Cards issued)._

POSTAL MONEY-ORDER SYSTEM, The.

   The postal money-order system, though said to be older in
   practical existence, was regularly instituted and organized in
   England, in its present form, in 1859. It was adopted in the
   United States five years later, going into operation in
   November, 1864.

      _D. M. Dickinson,
      Progress and the Post
      (North American Review, October, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1887,
      page 687._

POSTAL SAVINGS BANKS.

   Postal savings banks were first brought into operation in
   England in 1861. "One shilling is the smallest sum that can be
   deposited. The Government has, however, … issued blank forms
   with spaces for twelve penny postage-stamps, and will receive
   one of these forms with twelve stamps affixed as a deposit.
   This plan was suggested by the desire to encourage habits of
   saving among children, and by the success of penny banks in
   connection with schools and mechanics' institutes. No one can
   deposit more than £30 in one year, or have to his credit more
   than £150 exclusive of interest. When the principal and
   interest together amount to £200, interest ceases until the
   amount has been reduced below £200.
{2582}
   Interest at two and a half per cent is paid, beginning the
   first of the month following the deposit and stopping the last
   of the month preceding the withdrawal, but no interest is paid
   on any sum less than a pound or not a multiple of a pound. The
   interest is added to the principal on the 31st of December of
   each year. … The English colonies … have established postal
   savings-banks of a similar character. … The Canadian system …
   went into operation in 1868. … Influenced by the success of
   the English system of postal savings-banks, the governments on
   the Continent of Europe have now nearly all made similar
   provisions for the investment of the surplus earnings of the
   people. The Italian system … went into operation February 20,
   1876. … In France the proposal to establish postal
   savings-banks was frequently discussed, but not adopted until
   March 1881, although the ordinary savings-banks had for
   several years been allowed to use the post-offices as places
   for the receipt and repayment of deposits. … The Austrian
   postal savings-banks were first opened January 12, 1883. … The
   Belgian system has been [1885] in successful operation for
   more than fifteen years; that of the Netherlands was
   established some three years ago; while Sweden has just
   followed her neighbors, Denmark and Norway, in establishing
   similar institutions. In 1871 Postmaster-General Creswel
   recommended the establishment of postal savings depositories
   in connection with the United States post-offices, and two
   years later he discussed the subject very fully in his annual
   report. Several of his successors have renewed his
   recommendation;" but no action has been taken by Congress.

      _D. B. King,
      Postal Savings-Banks
      (Popular Science Monthly, December, 1885)._

POSTAL TELEGRAPH, The.

   "The States of the continent of Europe were the first to
   appreciate the advantages of governmental control of the
   telegraph. … From the beginning they assumed the erection and
   management of the telegraph lines. It may be said that in
   taking control of the telegraphs the monarchical governments
   of the Old World were actuated as much by the desire to use
   them for the maintenance of authority as by the advantages
   which they offered for the service of the people. To a certain
   extent this is doubtless true, but it is none the less true
   that the people have reaped the most solid benefits, and that
   the tendency has been rather to liberalize government than to
   maintain arbitrary power. … The greatest progress and the best
   management have alike been shown in those countries where the
   forms of government are most liberal, as in Switzerland and
   Belgium. … In Great Britain the telegraph was at first
   controlled by private parties. … In July, 1868, an act was
   passed 'to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire,
   work, and maintain electric telegraphs.' … The rate for
   messages was fixed throughout the kingdom at one shilling for
   twenty words, excluding the address and signature. This rate
   covered delivery within one mile of the office of address, or
   within its postal delivery." The lines of the existing
   telegraph companies were purchased on terms which were
   commonly held to be exorbitant, and Parliament, changing its
   original intention, conferred on the post-office department a
   monopoly of the telegraphs. Thus "the British postal telegraph
   was from the first handicapped by an enormous interest charge,
   and to some extent by the odium which always attaches to a
   legal monopoly. But notwithstanding the exorbitant price paid
   for the telegraph, the investment has not proved an
   unprofitable one."

      _N. P. Hill,
      Speech in the Senate of the United States,
      January 14, 1884, on a Bill to Establish Postal Telegraphs,
      ("Speeches and Papers," pages 200-215)._

POSTAL UNION, The.

   The Postal Union, which now embraces most of the civilized and
   semi-civilized countries of the world, was formed originally
   by a congress of delegates, representing the principal
   governments of Europe, and the United States of America, which
   assembled at Berne, Switzerland, in September, 1874. A treaty
   was concluded at that time, which established uniform rates of
   postage (25 centimes, or 5 cents, on half-ounce letters),
   between the countries becoming parties to it, and opening the
   opportunity for other states to join in the same arrangement.
   From year to year since, the Postal Union has been widened by
   the accession of new signatories to the treaty, until very few
   regions of the globe where any postal system exists lie now
   outside of it. The late accessions to the Postal Union have
   been North Borneo, the German East African Protectorate, and
   the British Australasian Colonies, in 1801; Natal and
   Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1802; the South African Republic
   (Transvaal) in 1803. By the action of an international postal
   congress, held at Vienna, in 1801, a kind of international
   clearing-house for the Postal Union was established at Berne,
   Switzerland, and the settlement of accounts between its
   members has been greatly facilitated thereby.

POSTUMIAN ROAD.

   One of the great roads of the ancient Romans. It led from
   Genoa to Aquileia, by way of Placentia, Cremona and Verona.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

POTESTAS.

   The civil power with which a Roman magistrate was invested was
   technically termed potestas.

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity.,
      chapter 5._

POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA, The.

   The powers and prerogatives of the ancient tribunitian office,
   without the office itself, being conferred upon Augustus and
   his successors, became the most important element, perhaps, of
   the finally compacted sovereignty of the Roman emperors.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 30._

POTIDÆA, Siege of.

   The city of Potidæa, a Corinthian colony founded on the long
   peninsula of Pallene which projects from the Macedonian coast,
   but which had become subject to Athens, revolted from the
   latter B. C. 432, and was assisted by the Corinthians. This
   was among the quarrels which led up to the Peloponnesian War.
   The Athenians reduced the city and expelled the inhabitants
   after a siege of three years.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      books 1-2._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 432;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 430-429.

POTOMAC, Army of the:
   Its creation and its campaigns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1862 (MARCH-JULY), and after.

POTOSI, The Spanish province of.
   Modern Bolivia.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{2583}

POTTAWATOMIES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, AND OJIBWAS.

POUNDAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

POWHATANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

POYNING'S ACTS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1494.

PRÆFECTS.
PREFECTS.
PRÉFÊTS.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
      and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PRÆMUNIRE, Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PRÆNESTE, Sulla's capture of.

   Præneste, the ancient city of the Latins, held against Sulla,
   in the first civil war, by young Marius, was surrendered after
   the battle at the Colline Gate of Rome. Sulla ordered the male
   inhabitants to be put to the sword and gave up the town to his
   soldiers for pillage.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 19._

PRÆNOMEN.
NOMEN.
COGNOMEN.

      See GENS.

PRÆTOR.

   See ROME: B. C. 366.

   ----------PRÆTORIANS: Start--------

PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.
PRÆTORIANS.

   "The commander–in-chief of a Roman army was attended by a
   select detachment, which, under the name of 'Cohors
   Praetoria,' remained closely attached to his person in the
   field, ready to execute his orders, and to guard him from any
   sudden attack. … Augustus, following his usual line of policy,
   retained the ancient name of 'Praetoriae Cohortes,' while he
   entirely changed their character. He levied in Etruria,
   Umbria, ancient Latium, and the old Colonies, nine or ten
   Cohorts, consisting of a thousand men each, on whom he
   bestowed double pay and superior privileges. These formed a
   permanent corps, who acted as the Imperial Life Guards, ready
   to overawe the Senate, and to suppress any sudden popular
   commotion."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

   The Prætorian Guard had been quartered, during the reign of
   Augustus, and during the early years of the reign of Tiberius,
   in small barracks at various points throughout the city, or in
   the neighboring towns. Sejanus, the intriguing favorite of
   Tiberius, being commander of the formidable corps, established
   it in one great permanent camp, "beyond the north-eastern
   angle of the city, and between the roads which sprang from the
   Viminal and Colline gates." This was done A. D. 23.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 45._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 41.
   Their elevation of Claudius to the throne.

      See ROME: A. D. 41.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
   Murder of Pertinax and sale of the empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 193.
   Reconstitution by Severus.

   Severus, whose first act on reaching Rome had been to disarm
   and disband the insolent Guard which murdered Pertinax and
   sold the empire to Julianus, had no thought of dispensing with
   the institution. There was soon in existence a new
   organization of Prætorians, increased to four times the
   ancient number and picked from all the legions of the
   frontiers.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5._

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 238.
   Murder of Balbinus and Pupienus.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

PRÆTORIANS: A. D. 312.
   Abolition by Constantine.

   "By the prudent measures of Diocletian, the numbers of the
   Prætorians were insensibly reduced, their privileges
   abolished, and their place supplied by two faithful legions of
   Illyricum, who, under the new titles of Jovians and
   Herculians, were appointed to perform the service of the
   imperial guards. … They were old corps stationed at Illyricum;
   and, according to the ancient establishment, they each
   consisted of 6,000 men. They had acquired much reputation by
   the use of the plumbatæ, or darts loaded with lead."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13, with foot-note._

   Restored and augmented by Maxentius, during his brief reign,
   the Prætorians were finally abolished and their fortified camp
   destroyed, by Constantine, after his victory in the civil war
   of A. D. 312.

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

   ----------PRÆTORIANS: End--------

PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

   "As the government degenerated into military despotism, the
   Prætorian præfect, who in his origin had been a simple captain
   of the guards, was placed not only at the head of the army,
   but of the finances, and even of the law. In every department
   of administration he represented the person, and exercised the
   authority, of the emperor. The first præfect who enjoyed and
   abused this immense power was Plautianus, the favourite
   minister of Severus. … They [the Prætorian præfects) were
   deprived by Constantine of all military command as soon as
   they had ceased to lead into the field, under their immediate
   orders, the flower of the Roman troops; and at length, by a
   singular revolution, the captains of the guards were
   transformed into the civil magistrates of the provinces.
   According to the plan of government instituted by Diocletian,
   the four princes had each their Prætorian præfect; and, after
   the monarchy was once more united in the person of
   Constantine, he still continued to create the same number of
   four præfects, and intrusted to their care the same provinces
   which they already administered.

   1. The Præfect of the East stretched his ample jurisdiction"
   from the Nile to the Phasis and from Thrace to Persia.

   "2. The important provinces of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, and
   Greece, acknowledged the authority of the Præfect of
   Illyricum.

   3. The power of the Præfect of Italy" extended to the Danube,
   and over the islands of the Mediterranean and part of Africa.

   "4. The Præfect of the Gauls comprehended under that plural
   denomination the kindred provinces of Britain and Spain, and …
   to the foot of Mount Atlas.

   … Rome and Constantinople were alone excepted from the
   jurisdiction of the Prætorian præfects. … A perfect equality
   was established between the dignity of the two municipal, and
   that of the four Prætorian præfects."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 5 and 17._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PRÆTORIUM, The.

   "In the very early days of Rome, before even Consuls had a
   being, the two chief magistrates of the republic bore the
   title of Praetors. Some remembrance of this fact lingering in
   the speech of the people gave always to the term Prætorium
   (the Praetor's house) a peculiar majesty, and caused it to be
   used as the equivalent of palace. So in the well-known
   passages of the New Testament, the palace of Pilate the
   Governor at Jerusalem, of Herod the King at Caesarea, of Nero
   the Emperor at Rome, are all called the Praetorium. From the
   palace the troops who surrounded the person of the Emperor
   took their well-known name, 'the Praetorian Guard.'"

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

{2584}

PRAGA, Battle of (1831).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

   ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: Start--------

PRAGMATIC SANCTION.

   "No two words convey less distinct meaning to English ears
   than those which form this title: nor are we at all prepared
   to furnish an equivalent. Perhaps 'a well considered
   Ordinance' may in some degree represent them: i. e. an
   Ordinance which has been fully discussed by men practised in
   State Affairs. But we are very far from either recommending or
   being satisfied with such a substitute. The title was used in
   the Lower [the Byzantine] Empire, and Ducange ad v. describes
   'Pragmaticum Rescriptum seu Pragmatica Sanctio' to be that
   which 'ad hibitâ diligente causæ cognitione, ex omnium
   Procerum consensu in modum sententiæ lecto, a Principe
   conceditur.'"

      _E. Smedley,
      History of France,
      part 1, chapter 15, footnote._

   "Pragmatic Sanction being, in the Imperial Chancery and some
   others, the received title for Ordinances of a very
   irrevocable nature, which a sovereign makes, in affairs that
   belong wholly to himself, or what he reckons his own rights."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick II.,
      book 5, chapter 2._

   "This word [pragmatic] is derived from the Greek 'pragma,'
   which means 'a rule.'"

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      volume 1, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 5, foot-note._

   The following are the more noted ordinances which have borne
   this name.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1220 and 1232.
   Of the Emperor Frederick II.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1268 (?).
   Of St. Louis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1438.
   Of Charles VII. of France, and its abrogation.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION:A. D. 1547.
   Of the Emperor Charles V. for the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1547.

PRAGMATIC SANCTION: A. D. 1718.
   Of the Emperor Charles VI.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740 (OCTOBER).

   ----------PRAGMATIC SANCTION: End--------

   ----------PRAGUE: Start--------

PRAGUE: A. D. 1348-1409.
   The University and the German secession.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY;
      and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1620.
   Battle of the White Mountain.
   Abandonment of crown and capital by Frederick.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1631.
   Occupied and plundered by the Saxons.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1648.
   Surprise and capture of the Kleinsite by the Swedes.
   Siege of the older part of the city.
   The end of the Thirty Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1741.
   Taken by the French, Saxons and Bavarians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1742.
   The French blockaded in the city.
   Retreat of Belleisle.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1744.
   Won and lost by Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

PRAGUE: A. D. 1757.
   Battle.
   Prussian victory
   Siege.
   Relief by Count Daun.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

PRAGUE: A. D. 1848.
   Bombardment by the Austrians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

   ----------PRAGUE: End--------

PRAGUE, Congress of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

PRAGUE,
   Treaty of (1634).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Treaty of (1866).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

PRAGUERIE.

   The commotions produced by John Huss, at Prague, in the
   beginning of the 15th century, gave the name Praguerie, at
   that period, to all sorts of popular disturbances.

PRAIRIAL, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

PRAIRIAL FIRST, The insurrection of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

PRAIRIAL TWENTY-SECOND, Law of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

PRAIRIE GROVE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

PRAKRITA.

      See SANSKRIT

PRATO, The horrible sack of (1512).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

PRECIANI, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

PRECIEUSES.

      See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

PRECIOUS METALS, Production of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES, and 1848-1893.

PREFECTS.
PRÉFÊTS.
PRÆFECTS.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14;
      and PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

PREMIER.
PRIME MINISTER.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PREMISLAUS, King of Poland, A. D. 1289-1296.

PREMONSTRATENSIAN ORDER.

   This was the most important branch of the Regular Canons of
   St. Augustine, founded by St. Norbert, a German nobleman, who
   died in 1134. It took its name from Pre-montre, in Picardy,
   where the first house was established.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      section 243 (volume 2)._

      See AUSTIN CANONS.

PRESBURG, OR PRESSBURG, Peace of (1805).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------PRESBYTERIANS: Start--------

PRESBYTERIANS, English,
   in the Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY),
      and (JULY-SEPTEMBER); 1646 (MARCH);
      1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); (AUGUST-DECEMBER); 1648.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   At the Restoration.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660; 1661; and 1662-1665.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   In Colonial Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   Scotch-Irish.

      See SCOTCH-IRISH.

PRESBYTERIANS:
   Scottish.

      See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

   ----------PRESBYTERIANS: End--------

PRESCOTT, Colonel William, and the battle of Bunker Hill.

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

{2585}

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

   "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
   United States of America. He shall hold his office during the
   term of four years, and, together with the Vice-President,
   chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: Each State
   shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
   direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of
   Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
   entitled in the Congress [and these electors, meeting in their
   respective States, shall vote for President and
   Vice-President, transmitting certified lists of their votes to
   the President of the Senate of the United States, who shall
   count them in the presence of the two Houses of Congress; and
   if no person is elected President by a majority of all the
   votes cast, then the House of Representatives shall elect a
   President from the three persons who received the highest
   numbers of the votes cast by the electors, the representation
   from each State having one vote in such election]. … No person
   except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United
   States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall
   be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any
   person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
   to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a
   resident within the United States. … The President shall be
   Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
   and of the militia of the several States, when called into the
   actual service of the United States; he may require the
   opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the
   executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties
   of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant
   reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States,
   except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and
   with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,
   provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
   shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the
   Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
   consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers
   of the United States whose appointments are not herein
   otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law;
   but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
   inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone,
   in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The
   President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may
   happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting
   commissions which shall expire at the end of their next
   session. He shall from time to time give to the Congress
   information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their
   consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and
   expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both
   houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between
   them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn
   them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
   ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care
   that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all
   the officers of the United States. The President,
   Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States,
   shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
   conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
   misdemeanors."

      _Constitution of the United States,
      article 2, and article 12 of amendments._

   The provisions of the Constitution regarding the Presidential
   succession, in case of the death or resignation of both
   President and Vice-President, are: 'In case of the removal of
   the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or
   inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
   office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the
   Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death,
   resignation, or inability both of the President and
   Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act as
   President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the
   disability be removed or a President shall be elected.'

      _(Article II, Section 6.)_

   In pursuance of the power thus granted to it in the last half
   of this section, Congress in 1792 passed an act declaring that
   in case of the death, resignation, etc., of both the President
   and Vice-President, the succession should be first to the
   President of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House.
   This order was changed by the act of 1886, which provided that
   the succession to the presidency should be as follows:

   1. President.
   2. Vice-President.
   3. Secretary of State.
   4. Secretary of the Treasury.
   5. Secretary of War.
   6. Attorney General.
   7. Postmaster General.
   8. Secretary of the Navy.
   9. Secretary of the Interior.

   In all cases the remainder of the four-years' term shall be
   served out. This act also regulated the counting of the votes
   of the electors by Congress, and the determination of who were
   legally chosen electors.

      _Statutes of the United States passed at 1st Session
      of 49th Congress, page 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 27._

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 3, chapters 36-37 (volume 3)._

      _The Federalist,
      numbers 66-76._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 5-8 (volume 1)._

PRESIDIO.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835

PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING.

PRESSBURG, or
PRESBURG, Treaty of (1805).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1800.

PRESS-GANG.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.

PRESTER JOHN, The Kingdom of.

   "About the middle of the eleventh century stories began to be
   circulated in Europe as to a Christian nation of north-eastern
   Asia, whose sovereign was at the same time king and priest,
   and was known by the name of Prester John. Amid the mass of
   fables with which the subject is encumbered, it would seem to
   be certain that, in the very beginning of the century, the
   Khan of the Keraït, a tribe whose chief seat was at Karakorum,
   between Lake Baikal and the northern frontier of China, was
   converted to Nestorian Christianity—it is said, through the
   appearance of a saint to him when he had lost his way in
   hunting. By means of conversation with Christian merchants, he
   acquired some elementary knowledge of the faith, and, on the
   application of Ebed-Jesu, metropolitan of Maru, to the
   Nestorian patriarch Gregory, clergy were sent, who baptized
   the king and his subjects, to the number of 200,000. Ebed-Jesu
   consulted the patriarch how the fasts were to be kept, since
   the country did not afford any corn, or anything but flesh and
   milk; and the answer was, that, if no other Lenten provisions
   were to be had, milk should be the only diet for seasons of
   abstinence. The earliest western notice of this nation is
   given by Otho of Freising, from the relation of an Armenian
   bishop who visited the court of pope Eugenius III. This report
   is largely tinctured with fable, and deduces the Tartar
   chief's descent from the Magi who visited the Saviour in His
   cradle.
{2586}
   It would seem that the Nestorians of Syria, for the sake of
   vying with the boasts of the Latins, delighted in inventing
   tales as to the wealth, the splendour, and the happiness of
   their convert's kingdom; and to them is probably to be
   ascribed an extravagantly absurd letter, in which Prester John
   is made to dilate on the greatness and the riches of his
   dominions, the magnificence of his state and the beauty of his
   wives, and to offer the Byzantine emperor, Manuel, if he be of
   the true faith, the office of lord chamberlain in the court of
   Karakorum. In 1177 Alexander III. was induced by reports which
   a physician named Philip had brought back from Tartary, as to
   Prester John's desire to be received into communion with the
   pope, to address a letter to the king, recommending Philip as
   a religions instructor. But nothing is known as to the result
   of this; and in 1202 the Keraït kingdom was overthrown by the
   Tartar conqueror Genghis Khan. In explanation of the story as
   to the union of priesthood with royalty in Prester John, many
   theories have been proposed, of which two may be mentioned
   here: that it arose out of the fact of a Nestorian priest's
   having got possession of the kingdom on the death of a khan;
   or that, the Tartar prince's title being compounded of the
   Chinese 'wang' (king) and the Mongol 'khan,' the first of
   these words was confounded by the Nestorians of Syria with the
   name John, and the second with 'cohen' (a priest). … The
   identification of Prester John's kingdom with Abyssinia was a
   mistake of Portuguese explorers some centuries later."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 6, chapter 11, with foot-note (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel H. Yule,
      Note to 'The Book of Marco Polo,'
      volume 1, pages 204-209._

PRESTON,
   Battle of (1648).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

   Battle of (1715).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

PRESTON PANS, Battle of (1745).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

PRESTONBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

PRETAXATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

PRETENDERS, The Stuart.

      See JACOBITES.

PRICE'S RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

PRIDE'S PURGE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

PRIEST'S LANE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

PRIM, General, Assassination of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

PRIMATES.
METROPOLITANS.
PATRIARCHS.

   In the early organization of the Christian Church, the bishops
   of every province found it necessary "to make one of
   themselves superior to all the rest, and invest him with
   certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom
   they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is,
   the principal bishop of the province. … Next in order to the
   metropolitans or primates were the patriarchs; or, as they
   were at first called, archbishops and exarchs of the diocese.
   For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be generally
   taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province;
   yet anciently the name archbishop was a more extensive title,
   and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended
   over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishop of Rome,
   Alexandria, Antioch, &c."

      _T. Bingham,
      Antiquities of the Christian Church,
      book 2, chapters 16-17 (volume 1)._

      See, also, CHRISTIANITY; A. D. 312-337.

PRIME MINISTER, The English.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

PRINCE, Origin of the title.

      See PRINCEPS SENATUS.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

   "Prince Edward's Island, the smallest province of the Dominion
   [of Canada], originally called St. John's Island, until 1770
   formed part of Nova Scotia. The first Governor was Walter
   Patterson. … The first assembly met in 1773." In 1873 Prince
   Edward Island consented to be received into the Confederation
   of the Dominion of Canada—the latest of the provinces to
   accede to the Union, except Newfoundland, which still (1894)
   remains outside.

      _J. E. C. Munro,
      The Constitution of Canada,
      chapter 2._

      See, also,
      CANADA: A. D. 1867; and 1869-1873.

PRINCE OF THE CAPTIVITY.

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

PRINCE OF WALES.

      See WALES, PRINCE OF.

PRINCEPS SENATUS.

   "As the title of imperator conferred the highest military rank
   upon Augustus and his successors, so did that of princeps
   senatus, or princeps (as it came to be expressed by an easy
   but material abridgment), convey the idea of the highest civil
   preeminence consistent with the forms of the old constitution.
   In ancient times this title had been appropriated to the first
   in succession of living censorii, men who had served the
   office of censor; and such were necessarily patricians and
   senators. The sole privilege it conferred was that of speaking
   first in the debates of the senate; a privilege however to
   which considerable importance might attach from the exceeding
   deference habitually paid to authority and example by the
   Roman assemblies. … The title of princeps was modest and
   constitutional; it was associated with the recollection of the
   best ages of the free state and the purest models of public
   virtue; it could not be considered beyond the deserts of one
   who was undoubtedly the foremost man of the nation. … The
   popularity which the assumption of this republican title
   conferred upon the early emperors may be inferred from the
   care with which it is noted, and its constitutional functions
   referred to by the writers of the Augustan age and that which
   succeeded it. But it was an easy and natural step in the
   progress of political ideas to drop the application of the
   title, and contract it from prince of the senate, to prince
   merely. The original character of the appellation was soon
   forgotten, and the proper limits of its privileges confounded
   in the more vague and general prerogative which the bare
   designation of first or premier seemed to imply."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 3, note by Dr. W. Smith._

PRINCETON, Battle of (1777).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

PRINCIPES.

      See LEGION, THE ROMAN.

{2587}

   ----------PRINTING AND THE PRESS: Start--------

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1430-1456.
   The invention of movable type.
   Rival claims for Coster and Gutenberg.
   The first Printed Book.

   "Before arriving at the movable type placed side by side, and
   forming phrases, which appears to us to-day so simple and so
   ordinary, many years passed. It is certain that long before
   Gutenberg a means was found of cutting wood and metal in
   relief and reproducing by application the image traced. …
   Remembering that the numerous guilds of 'tailleurs d' images,'
   or sculptors in relief, had in the Middle Ages the specialty
   of carving ivories and of placing effigies on tombs, it can be
   admitted without much difficulty that these people one day
   found a means of multiplying the sketches of a figure often
   asked for, by modelling its contour in relief on ivory or
   wood, and afterwards taking a reproduction on paper or
   parchment by means of pressure. When and where was this
   discovery produced? We cannot possibly say; but it is certain
   that playing cards were produced by this means, and that from
   the year 1423 popular figures were cut in wood, as we know
   from the St. Christopher of that date belonging to Lord
   Spencer. … It is a recognised fact that the single sheet with
   a printed figure preceded the xylographic book, in which text
   and illustration were cut in the same block. This process did
   not appear much before the second quarter of the 15th century,
   and it was employed principally for popular works which were
   then the universal taste. The engraving also was nothing more
   than a kind of imposition palmed off as a manuscript; the
   vignettes were often covered with brilliant colours and gold,
   and the whole sold as of the best quality. … An attempt had
   been made to put some text at the foot of the St. Christopher
   of 1423, and the idea of giving more importance to the text
   was to the advantage of the booksellers. … At the epoch of the
   St. Christopher, in 1423, several works were in vogue in the
   universities, the schools, and with the public. … To find a
   means of multiplying these treatises at little cost was a
   fortune to the inventor. It is to be supposed that many
   artisans of the time attempted it; and without doubt it was
   the booksellers themselves, mostly mere dealers, who were
   tempted to the adventure by the sculptors and wood-cutters.
   But none had yet been so bold as to cut in relief a series of
   blocks with engravings and text to compose a complete work.
   That point was reached very quickly when some legend was
   engraved at the foot of a vignette, and it may be thought that
   the 'Donatus' [i. e. the Latin Syntax of Ælius Donatus] was
   the most ancient of books so obtained among the 'Incunabuli,'
   as we now call them, a word that signifies origin or cradle.
   The first books then were formed of sheets of paper or
   parchment, laboriously printed from xylographic blocks, that
   is to say wooden blocks on which a 'tailleur d' images' had
   left in relief the designs and the letters of the text. He had
   thus to trace his characters in reverse, so that they could be
   reproduced as written; he had to avoid faults, because a
   phrase once done, well or ill, lasted. It was doubtless this
   difficulty of correction that gave the idea of movable types.
   … This at least explains the legend of Laurent Coster, of
   Haarlem, who, according to Hadrian Junius, his compatriot,
   discovered by accident the secret of separate types while
   playing with his children. And if the legend of which we speak
   contains the least truth, it must be found in the sense above
   indicated, that is in the correction of faults, rather than in
   the innocent game of a merchant of Haarlem. … Movable type,
   the capital point of printing, the pivot of the art of the
   Book, developed itself little by little, according to needs,
   when there was occasion to correct an erroneous inscription;
   but, in any case, its origin is unknown. Doubtless to vary the
   text, means were found to replace entire phrases by other
   phrases, preserving the original figures; and thus the light
   dawned upon these craftsmen, occupied in the manufacture and
   sale of their books. According to Hadrian Junius, Laurent
   Janszoon Coster (the latter name signifying 'the discoverer')
   published one of the celebrated series of works under the
   general title of 'Speculum' which was then so popular, … the
   'Speculum Humanæ Salvationis.' … Junius, as we see, attributes
   to Laurent Coster the first impression of the 'Speculum,' no
   longer the purely xylographic impression of the 'Donatus' from
   an engraved block, but that of the more advanced manner in
   movable types [probably between 1430 and 1440]. In point of
   fact, this book had at least four editions, similar in
   engravings and body of letters, but of different text. It must
   then be admitted that the fount was dispersed, and typography
   discovered. … All the xylographic works of the 15th century
   may be classed in two categories: the xylographs, rightly so
   called, or the block books, such as the 'Donatus,' and the
   books with movable types, like the 'Speculum,' of which we
   speak. … The movable types used, cut separately in wood, were
   not constituted to give an ideal impression. We can understand
   the cost that the execution of these characters must have
   occasioned, made as they were one by one, without the
   possibility of ever making them perfectly uniform. Progress
   was to substitute for this irregular process types that were
   similar, identical, easily produced, and used for a long time
   without breaking. Following on the essays of Laurent Coster,
   continuous researches bore on this point. … Here history is
   somewhat confused. Hadrian Junius positively accuses one of
   Laurent Coster's workmen of having stolen the secrets of his
   master and taken flight to Mayence, where he afterwards
   founded a printing office. According to Junius, the metal type
   was the discovery of the Dutchman, and the name of the thief
   was John. Who was this John? Was it John Gænsefleisch, called
   Gutenberg, or possibly John Fust? But it is not at all
   apparent that Gutenberg, a gentleman of Mayence, exiled from
   his country, was ever in the service of the Dutch inventor. As
   to Fust, we believe his only intervention in the association
   of printers of Mayence was as a money-lender, from which may
   be comprehended the unlikelihood of his having been with
   Coster, the more so as we find Gutenberg retired to
   Strasbourg, where he pursued his researches. There he was, as
   it were, out of his sphere, a ruined noble whose great
   knowledge was bent entirely on invention. Doubtless, like many
   others, he may have had in his hands one of the printed works
   of Laurent Coster, and conceived the idea of appropriating the
   infant process.
{2588}
   In 1439 he was associated with two artisans of the city of
   Strasbourg, ostensibly in the fabrication of mirrors, which
   may be otherwise understood as printing of 'Speculums,' the
   Latin word signifying the same thing. … Three problems
   presented themselves to him. He wanted types less fragile than
   wooden types and less costly than engraving. He wanted a press
   by the aid of which he could obtain a clear impression on
   parchment or paper. He desired also that the leaves of his
   books should not be anopistograph, or printed only on one
   side. … Until then, and even long after, the xylographs were
   printed 'au frotton,' or with a brush, rubbing the paper upon
   the forme coated with ink, thicker than ordinary ink. He
   dreamed of something better. In the course of his work John
   Gutenberg returned to Mayence. The idea of publishing a Bible,
   the Book of books, had taken possession of his heart. … The
   cutting of his types had ruined him. … In this unhappy
   situation, Gutenberg made the acquaintance of a financier of
   Mayence, named Fust, … who put a sum of 1,100 florins at his
   disposal to continue his experiments. Unfortunately this money
   disappeared, it melted away, and the results obtained were
   absolutely ludicrous. … About this time a third actor enters
   on the scene. Peter Schoeffer, of Gernsheim, a writer,
   introduced into the workshop of Gutenberg to design letters,
   benefited by the abortive experiments, and taking up the
   invention at its dead-lock, conducted it to success. John of
   Tritenheim, called Trithemius, the learned abbot of Spanheim,
   is the person who relates these facts; but as he got his
   information from Schoeffer himself, too much credence must not
   be given to his statements. Besides, Schoeffer was not at all
   an ordinary artisan. If we credit a Strasbourg manuscript
   written by his hand in 1449, he was a student of the 'most
   glorious university of Paris.'" How much Schoeffer contributed
   to the working out of the invention is a matter of conjecture;
   but in 1454 it was advanced to a state in which the first
   known application of it in practical use was made. This was in
   the printing of copies of the famous letters of indulgence
   which Pope Nicholas V. was then selling throughout Europe.
   Having the so far perfected invention in hand, Fust and
   Schoeffer (the latter now having married the former's
   granddaughter) wished to rid themselves of Gutenberg. "Fust
   had a most easy pretext, which was to demand purely and simply
   from his associate the sums advanced by him, and which had
   produced so little. Gutenberg had probably commenced his
   Bible, but, in face of the claims of Fust, he had to abandon
   it altogether, types, formes, and press. In November, 1455, he
   had retired to a little house outside the city, where he tried
   his best, by the aid of foreign help, to establish a workshop,
   and to preserve the most perfect secrecy. Relieved of his
   company, Fust and Schoeffer were able to take up the
   impression of the Bible and to complete it without him. … One
   thing is certain: that the Bible of Schoeffer, commenced by
   Gutenberg or not, put on sale by Fust and Schoeffer alone
   about the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, proves to be the
   first completed book. … It is now called the Mazarine Bible,
   from the fact that the copy in the Mazarin Library was the
   first to give evidence concerning it. The book was put on sale
   at the end of 1455 or beginning of 1456, for a manuscript note
   of a vicar of St. Stephen at Mayence records that he finished
   the binding and illuminating of the first volume on St.
   Bartholomew's Day [June 13], 1456, and the second on the 15th
   of August. … All these remarks show that the printers did not
   proclaim themselves, and were making pseudo-manuscripts. …
   Many of the copies are illuminated with as much care and
   beauty as if they were the finest manuscripts. … Copies are by
   no means uncommon, most of the great libraries having one, and
   many are in private collections."

      _H. Bouchot,
      The Printed Book,
      chapter 1._

   "The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of
   the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a
   very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not
   the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man
   who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude
   state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere
   as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing,
   Gutenberg's name was known in Paris so early as 1472. … Mr.
   Hessels … believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives
   as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and
   that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is
   substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for
   more evidence. There is no doubt that the back-bone of the
   Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books
   discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and
   which give support to, at the same time that they receive
   support from, the Cologne Chronicler. … These now amount to
   forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to
   continually now that the attention of librarians has been
   strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving
   them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr.
   Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal
   evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may
   well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books
   were not printed long after Gutenberg's press was at work? …
   The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a
   single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any
   printer's name or place or date. To this the reply is, that
   these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like
   works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast
   of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all
   times 'sine ulla nota,' and certain to be destroyed when done
   with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and
   the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove
   them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all
   discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly' in various
   towns of Holland. … Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different
   books as 'Costeriana,' which include four editions of the
   Speculum, nineteen of Donatus, and seven of Doctrinale. The
   Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five
   different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated
   books of 1473 and onwards, printed in Holland, they have
   nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS.
   and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.
   Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain
   aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in
   the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography.
   That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible
   and Psalter could be the legitimate predecessors of the
   Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I
   cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their
   workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much
   ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious."

      _W. Blades,
      Books in Chains, and other Bibliographical Papers,
      pages 149-158._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Hessels,
      Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literature and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 101-120._

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      chapters 3-4._

{2589}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1457-1489.
   Progress and diffusion of the art.

   After the Mazarine Bible, "then follows the Kalendar for the
   year 1457, most probably printed at the end of 1456. Then
   again the printed dates, August 14, 1457 and 1459, with place
   (Mentz) in the colophons of the Psalter issued by Fust and
   Schoeffer; the printed year 1460 (with Mentz added) in the
   Catholicon [a Latin Grammar and Dictionary]. &c. &c. So that,
   with the exception of 1458, there is no interruption in Mentz
   printing from the moment that we see it begin there. As
   regards the printed psalter, its printers are mentioned
   distinctly in the book itself; but the other books just
   mentioned are assumed to have been issued by the same two
   Mentz printing-offices which are supposed to be already at
   work there in 1454, though the 1460 Catholicon and some of the
   other works are ascribed by some to other printers. By the
   side of these dates, we find already a Bible completed in 1460
   by Mentelin at Strassburg, according to a MS. note in the copy
   preserved at Freiburg. … Assuming then, for a moment, that
   Mentz is the starting-point, we see printing spread to
   Strassburg in 1460; to Bamberg in 1461; to Subiaco in 1465; in
   1466 (perhaps already in 1463) it is established at Cologne;
   in 1467 at Eltville, Rome; in 1468 at Augsburg, Basle,
   Marienthal; in 1469 at Venice; 1470 at Nuremberg, Verona,
   Foligno, Trevi, Savigliano, Paris; 1471 at Spire, Bologna,
   Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Naples, Pavia, Treviso; 1472 at
   Esslingen, Cremona, Mantua, Padua, Parma, Monreale, Fivizano,
   Verona; 1473 at Laugingen, Ulm (perhaps here earlier),
   Merseburg, Alost, Utrecht, Lyons, Brescia, Messina; 1474 at
   Louvain, Genoa, Como, Savona, Turin, Vicenza; 1475 at Lubeck,
   Breslau, Blaubeuren, Burgdorf, Modena, Reggio, Cagli, Caselle
   or Casale, Saragossa; 1476 at Rostock, Bruges (here earlier?),
   Brussels; 1477 at Reichenstein, Deventer, Gouda, Delft,
   Westminster; 1478 at Oxford, St. Maartensdyk, Colle,
   Schussenried, Eichstadt; 1479 at Erfurt, Würzburg, Nymegen,
   Zwolle, Poitiers; 1480 at London [?], Oudenaarde, Hasselt,
   Reggio; 1481 at Passau, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Treves, Urach;
   1482 at Reutlingen, Memmingen, Metz, Antwerp; 1483 at Leiden,
   Kuilenburg, Ghent, Haarlem; 1484 at Bois-le–Duc, Siena; 1485
   at Heidelberg, Regensburg; 1486 at Munster, Stuttgart; 1487 at
   Ingolstadt; 1488 at Stendal; 1489 at Hagenau, &c."

      _J. H. Hessels,
      Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz,
      chapter 4._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.
   The early Venetian printers.
   The Aldine Press.

   "One of the famous first race of German printers, John of
   Spires, arrived at Venice in the year 1469, and immediately
   brought his art into full play; producing within the first
   three months his fine edition of the 'Letters of Cicero.' a
   masterpiece of early printing. … The success of John of Spires
   as a printer was at once recognized by the Venetian Republic;
   and Pasquale Malipiero, the reigning Doge, granted a patent
   conferring upon him the sole right of printing books within
   the territory of Venice. … But the enterprising printer did
   not live to enjoy the privilege," and it was not continued to
   any of his family, "On the withdrawal of the monopoly several
   new printers set up their Presses in the city, among whom was
   the celebrated Jenson, the ingenious Frenchman who was sent by
   Charles VII. to acquire the art at Mayence. … John Emeric, of
   Udenheim, was another of the German printers who immediately
   succeeded John and Vindelin of Spires; and still more
   successful, though somewhat later, in the field, was Erard
   Ratdolt. … He [Ratdolt] is said to have been the first to
   adopt a regular form of Title at all approaching our modern
   conception of a Book-Title; and he also took the lead in the
   production of those beautifully-engraved initials for which
   the books printed in Italy towards the close of the 15th
   century are famous. His most splendid work is undoubtedly the
   'Elements of Euclid, with the Commentaries of Campanus.' …
   Nicholas Jenson was the most renowned of those who followed
   the earliest German printers in Venice, until his works were
   partially eclipsed by those of the Aldi. … In 1470 he [Jenson]
   had … completed his preparations, and the first four works
   which issued from his Venetian press appeared in that year. …
   These works were printed with Roman characters of his own
   engraving, more perfect in form than those of any previous
   printer. His types are in fact the direct parents of the
   letters now in general use, which only differ from them in
   certain small details dependent solely on fashion. … This
   celebrated printer died in September of the year 1481. …
   Andrea Torresani and others continued Jenson's Association,
   making use of the same types. Torresani was eventually
   succeeded in the same establishment by the celebrated Aldo
   Manuccio, who, having married his daughter, adopted the
   important vocation of printer, and became the first of those
   famous 'Aldi,' as they are commonly termed, whose fame has not
   only absorbed that of all the earlier Venetian printers, but
   that of the early printers of every other Italian seat of the
   art. … It was Manuccio who, among many other advances in this
   art, first invented the semi-cursive style of character now
   known as 'Italic'; and it is said that it was founded upon a
   close imitation of the careful handwriting of Petrarch, which,
   in fact, it closely resembles. This new type was used for a
   small octavo edition of 'Virgil,' issued in 1501, on the
   appearance of which he obtained from Pope Leo X. a letter of
   privilege, entitling him to the sole use of the new type which
   he had invented." The list of the productions of the elder
   Aldus and his son Paul "comprises nearly all the great works
   of antiquity, and of the best Italian authors of their own
   time. From their learning and general accomplishments, the
   Aldi might have occupied a brilliant position as scholars and
   authors, but preferred the useful labour of giving correctly
   to the world the valuable works of others. The Greek editions
   of the elder Aldus form the basis of his true glory,
   especially the 'Aristotle,' printed in 1405, a work of almost
   inconceivable labour and perseverance."

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      chapter 8._

{2590}

   "Aldus and his studio and all his precious manuscripts
   disappeared during the troubled years of the great Continental
   war in which all the world was against Venice [see VENICE: A.
   D. 1508-1500]. In 1510, 1511, and 1512, scarcely any book
   proceeded from his press. … After the war Aldus returned to
   his work with renewed fervour. 'It is difficult,' says
   Renouard, 'to form an idea of the passion with which he
   devoted himself to the reproduction of the great works of
   ancient literature. If he heard of the existence anywhere of a
   manuscript unpublished, or which could throw a light upon an
   existing text, he never rested till he had it in his
   possession. He did not shrink from long journeys, great
   expenditure, applications of all kinds.' … It is not in this
   way however that the publisher, that much questioned and
   severely criticised middleman, makes a fortune. And Aldus died
   poor. His privileges did not stand him in much stead,
   copyright, especially when not in books but in new forms of
   type, being non-existent in his day. In France and Germany,
   and still nearer home, his beautiful Italic was robbed from
   him, copied on all sides, notwithstanding the protection
   granted by the Pope and other princes as well as by the
   Venetian Signoria. His fine editions were printed from, and
   made the foundation of foreign issues which replaced his own.
   How far his princely patrons stood by him to repair his losses
   there seems no information. His father-in-law, Andrea of
   Asola, a printer who was not so fine a scholar, but perhaps
   more able to cope with the world, did come to his aid, and his
   son Paolo Manutio, and his grandson Aldo il Giovane, as he is
   called, succeeded him in turn."

      _Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Venice,
      part 4, chapter 3._

   Aldus died in 1515. His son Paul left Venice for Rome in 1562.


PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.
   Introduction in England.
   The Caxton Press.

   "It was probably at the press of Colard Mansion, in a little
   room over the porch of St. Donat's at Bruges, that William
   Caxton learned the art which he was the first to introduce
   into England. A Kentish boy by birth, but apprenticed to a
   London mercer, Caxton had already spent thirty years of his
   manhood in Flanders as Governor of the English gild of
   Merchant Adventurers there, when we find him engaged as
   copyist in the service of Edward's sister, Duchess Margaret of
   Burgundy. But the tedious process of copying was soon thrown
   aside for the new art which Colard Mansion had introduced into
   Bruges. … The printing-press was the precious freight he
   brought back to England in 1476 after an absence of
   five-and-thirty years. Through the next fifteen, at an age
   when other men look for ease and retirement, we see him
   plunging with characteristic energy into his new occupation.
   His 'red pale' or heraldic shield marked with a red bar down
   the middle invited buyers to the press he established in the
   Almonry at Westminster, a little enclosure containing a chapel
   and almshouses near the west front of the church, where the
   alms of the abbey were distributed to the poor. … Caxton was a
   practical man of business, … no rival of the Venetian Aldi or
   of the classical printers of Rome, but resolved to get a
   living from his trade, supplying priests with service books
   and preachers with sermons, furnishing the clerk with his
   'Golden Legend' and knight and baron with 'joyous and pleasant
   histories of chivalry.' But while careful to win his daily
   bread, he found time to do much for what of higher literature
   lay fairly to hand. He printed all the English poetry of any
   moment which was then in existence. His reverence for that
   'worshipful man, Geoffrey Chaucer,' who 'ought to be eternally
   remembered,' is shown not merely by his edition of the
   'Canterbury Tales,' but by his reprint of them when a purer
   text of the poem offered itself. The poems of Lydgate and
   Gower were added to those of Chaucer. The Chronicle of Brut
   and Higden's 'Polychronicon' were the only available works of
   an historical character then existing in the English tongue,
   and Caxton not only printed them but himself continued the
   latter up to his own time. A translation of Boethius, a
   version of the Eneid from the French, and a tract or two of
   Cicero, were the stray first-fruits of the classical press in
   England. Busy as was Caxton's printing-press, he was even
   busier as a translator than as a printer. More than four
   thousand of his printed pages are from works of his own
   rendering. The need of these translations shows the popular
   drift of literature at the time; but keen as the demand seems
   to have been, there is nothing mechanical in the temper with
   which Caxton prepared to meet it. A natural, simple-hearted
   taste and enthusiasm, especially for the style and forms of
   language, breaks out in his curious prefaces. … But the work
   of translation involved a choice of English which made
   Caxton's work important in the history of our language. He
   stood between two schools of translation, that of French
   affectation and English pedantry. It was a moment when the
   character of our literary tongue was being settled, and it is
   curious to see in his own words the struggle over it which was
   going on in Caxton's time. 'Some honest and great clerks have
   been with me and desired me to write the most curious terms
   that I could find;' on the other hand, 'some gentlemen of late
   blamed me, saying that in my translations I had over many
   curious terms which could not be understood of common people,
   and desired me to use old and homely terms in my
   translations.' 'Fain would I please every man,' comments the
   good-humoured printer, but his sturdy sense saved him alike
   from the temptations of the court and the schools. His own
   taste pointed to English, but 'to the common terms that be
   daily used' rather than to the English of his antiquarian
   advisers. 'I took an old book and read therein, and certainly
   the English was so rude and broad I could not well understand
   it,' while the Old-English charters which the Abbot of
   Westminster lent as models from the archives of his house
   seemed 'more like to Dutch than to English.' To adopt current
   phraseology however was by no means easy at a time when even
   the speech of common talk was in a state of rapid flux. …
   Coupling this with his long absence in Flanders we can hardly
   wonder at the confession he makes over his first translation,
   that 'when all these things came to fore me, after that I had
   made and written a five or six quires, I fell in despair of
   this work, and purposed never to have continued therein, and
   the quires laid apart, and in two years after laboured no more
   in this work.' He was still however busy translating when he
   died [in 1491].
{2591}
   All difficulties in fact were lightened by the general
   interest which his labours aroused. When the length of the
   'Golden Legend' makes him 'half desperate to have accomplished
   it' and ready to 'lay it apart,' the Earl of Arundel solicits
   him in no wise to leave it and promises a yearly fee of a buck
   in summer and a doc in winter, once it were done. 'Many noble
   and divers gentle men of this realm came and demanded many and
   often times wherefore I have not made and imprinted the noble
   history of the San Graal.' … Caxton profited in fact by the
   wide literary interest which was a mark of the time."

      _J. R. Green,
      History of the English People,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

   "Contemporary with Caxton were the printers Lettou and
   Machlinia, … who carried on business in the city of London,
   where they established a press in 1480. Machlinia had
   previously worked under Caxton. … Wynkyn de Worde … in all
   probability … was one of Caxton's assistants or workmen, when
   the latter was living at Bruges, but without doubt he was
   employed in his office at Westminster until 1491, when he
   commenced business on his own account, having in his
   possession a considerable quantity of Caxton's type. Wynkyn de
   Worde, who was one of the founders of the Stationers' Company,
   died in 1534, after having printed no less than 410 books
   known to bibliographers, the earliest of which bearing a date
   is the 'Liber Festivalis,' 4to, 1493."

      _J. H. Slater,
      Book Collecting,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Knight,
      William Caxton._

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 138-194._

      _T. C. Hansard,
      History and Process of Printing
      ("The Five Black Arts," chapter 1)._

      _Gentleman's Magazine Library:
      Bibliographical Notes, and Literary Curiosities._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1496-1598.
   The Estienne or Stephanus Press in Paris.

   "With the names of Aldus and Elzevir we are all acquainted;
   the name of Estienne, or Stephanus, has a less familiar sound
   to English ears, though the family of Parisian printers was as
   famous in its day as the great houses of Venice and Leyden.
   The most brilliant member of it was the second Henry, whose
   story forms a melancholy episode in French literary history of
   the 16th century. … The Estiennes are said to have come of a
   noble Provençal family, but nothing is exactly known of their
   descent. The art of printing was not much more than fifty
   years old when Henry Estienne, having learnt his trade in
   Germany, came to Paris, and set up his press [about 1496] in
   the Rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, opposite the school of Canon
   Law. There for some twenty years he laboured diligently,
   bringing out in that time no less than 120 volumes, chiefly
   folios. The greater number of these are theological and
   scholastic works; among the few modern authors on the list is
   the name of Erasmus. Henry Estienne died in 1520 leaving three
   sons. Robert, the second of them, was born probably in 1503.
   The boys all being minors, the business passed into the hands
   of their mother, who in the following year married Simon de
   Colines, her late husband's foreman, and perhaps partner. …
   Robert worked with De Colines for five or six years before he
   went into business on his own account in the same street." It
   was he who first gave celebrity to the name and the press.
   "The spell of the Renaissance had early fallen upon the young
   printer, and it held him captive almost till the end of his
   life." He married "the daughter of the learned Flemish printer
   Jodocus Badius, notable for her culture and her beauty. Latin
   was the ordinary language of the household. The children
   learned it in infancy from hearing it constantly spoken. … At
   one time ten foreign scholars lived in Estienne's house to
   assist him in selecting and revising his manuscripts and in
   correcting his proofs. … Both Francis [King Francis I.] and
   his sister Marguerite of Navarre had a great regard for
   Robert, and often visited the workshop; to that royal
   patronage the printer was more than once indebted for his
   liberty and his life." His danger came from the bigoted
   Sorbonne, with whom he brought himself into collision by
   printing the Bible with as careful a correction of the text as
   he had performed in the case of the Latin classics. After the
   death of Francis I., the peril of the printer's situation
   became more serious, and in 1550 he fled to Geneva, renouncing
   the Roman Catholic faith. He died there in 1559.

      _H. C. Macdowall,
      An old French Printer
      (Macmillan's Magazine, November 1892)._

   The second Henry Estienne, son of Robert, either did not
   accompany his father to Geneva, or soon returned to Paris, and
   founded anew the Press of his family, bringing to it even more
   learning than his father, with equal laboriousness and zeal.
   He died at Lyons in 1598.

      _E. Greswell,
      A View of the Early Parisian Greek Press._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1535-1709.
   Introduction in America.
   The first Spanish printing in Mexico.
   The early Massachusetts Press.
   Restrictions upon its freedom.

   "The art of printing was first introduced into Spanish
   America, as early as the middle of the 16th century. The
   historians whose works I have consulted are all silent as to
   the time when it was first practiced on the American
   continent; … but it is certain that printing was executed,
   both in Mexico and Peru, long before it made its appearance in
   the British North American colonies. [The precise date of the
   introduction of printing into Mexico was for a long time in
   doubt. … When Mr. Thomas wrote his 'History of Printing in
   America,' early works on America were rare, and it is probable
   that there was not one in the country printed in either
   America or Europe in the 16th century, except the copy of
   Molina's dictionary; now many of the period may be found in
   our great private libraries. The dictionary of Molina, in
   Mexican and Spanish, printed in Mexico, in 1571, in folio,
   was, by many, asserted and believed to be the earliest book
   printed in America. … No one here had seen an earlier book
   until the 'Doctrina Christiana,' printed in the house of Juan
   Cromberger, in the city of Mexico, in the year 1544, was
   discovered. Copies of this rare work were found in two well
   known private libraries in New York and Providence. For a long
   time the honor was awarded to this as the earliest book
   printed in America. But there is now strong evidence that
   printing was really introduced in Mexico nine years before
   that time, and positive evidence, by existing books, that a
   press was established in 1540. Readers familiar with early
   books relating to Mexico have seen mention of a book printed
   there as early as 1535, … the 'Spiritual Ladder' of St John
   Climacus. … It seems that no copy of the 'Spiritual Ladder'
   has ever been seen in recent times, and the quoted
   testimonials are the only ones yet found which refer to it.

      _Note by Hon. John R. Bartlett,
      appendix A., giving a 'List of Books printed in Mexico
      between the years 1540 and 1560 inclusive.'_

{2592}

   … In January, 1639, printing was first performed in that part
   of North America which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the
   Frozen ocean. For this press our country is chiefly indebted
   to the Rev. Mr. Glover, a nonconformist minister, who
   possessed a considerable estate. … Another press, with types,
   and another printer, were, in 1660, sent over from England by
   the corporation for propagating the gospel among the Indians
   in New England. This press, &c., was designed solely for the
   purpose of printing the Bible, and other books, in the Indian
   language. On their arrival they were carried to Cambridge, and
   employed in the printing house already established in that
   place. … The fathers of Massachusetts kept a watchful eye on
   the press; and in neither a religious nor civil point of view
   were they disposed to give it much liberty. … In 1662, the
   government of Massachusetts appointed licensers of the press;
   and afterward, in 1664, passed a law that 'no printing should
   be allowed in any town within the jurisdiction, except in
   Cambridge'; nor should any thing be printed there but what the
   government permitted through the agency of those persons who
   were empowered for the purpose. … In a short time, this law
   was so far repealed as to permit the use of a press at Boston.
   … It does not appear that the press, in Massachusetts, was
   free from legal restraints till about the year 1755 [see
   PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729]. … Except in
   Massachusetts, no presses were set up in the colonies till
   near the close of the 17th century. Printing then [1686] was
   performed in Pennsylvania [by William Bradford], 'near
   Philadelphia' [at Shackamaxon, now Kensington], and afterward
   in that city, by the same press which, in a few years
   subsequent, was removed to New York.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693;
      also PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

   The use of types commenced in Virginia about 1681; in 1682 the
   press was prohibited. In 1709 a press was established at New
   London, in Connecticut."

      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2nd edition. (Translated and Collection
      of the American Antiquity Society, volume 5),
      volume 1, pages 1-17._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Bishop,
      History of American Manufactures,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650.
   Origin of printed newspapers.
   The newspaper defined.
   Its earliest appearances in Germany and Italy.

   "Lally-Tollendal, in his 'Life of Queen Elizabeth,' in the
   'Biographie Universelle' (vol. xiii, published in 1815, p. 56)
   … remarks that 'as far as the publication of an official
   journal is concerned, France can claim the priority by more
   than half a century; for in the Royal Library at Paris there
   is a bulletin of the campaign of Louis XII. in Italy in 1509.'
   He then gives the title of this 'bulletin,' from which it
   clearly appears that it is not a political journal, but an
   isolated piece of news—a kind of publication of which there
   are hundreds in existence of a date anterior to 1588 [formerly
   supposed to be the date of the first English newspaper—see
   PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702], and of which there
   is no doubt that thousands were issued. There is, for
   instance, in the British Museum a French pamphlet of six
   printed leaves, containing an account of the surrender of
   Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella on the 'first of January
   last past' (le premier jour de janvier dernierement passe), in
   the year 1492; and there are also the three editions of the
   celebrated letter of Columbus, giving the first account of the
   discovery of America, all printed at Rome in 1493. Nay, one of
   the very earliest productions of the German press was an
   official manifesto of Diether, Archbishop of Cologne, against
   Count Adolph of Nassau, very satisfactorily proved to have
   been printed at Mentz in 1462. There is among the German
   bibliographers a technical name for this class of printed
   documents, which are called 'Relations.' In fact, in order to
   arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with regard to the origin
   of newspapers, it is requisite, in the first place, to settle
   with some approach to precision what a newspaper is. Four
   classes of publications succeeded to each other from the 15th
   to the 19th century, to which the term has by different
   writers been applied:

   1st. Accounts of individual public transactions of recent
   occurrence.

   2nd. Accounts in one publication of several public
   transactions of recent occurrence, only connected together by
   having taken place about the same period, so as at one time to
   form the 'news of the day.'

   3rd. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
   in a numbered series.

   4th. Accounts similar to those of the second class, but issued
   not only in a numbered series, but at stated intervals.

   The notices of the surrender of Granada and the discovery of
   America belong to the first class, and so also do the last
   dying speeches, which are in our own time cried about the
   streets. These surely are not newspapers. The Times and Daily
   News [London] belong to the fourth class, and these, of
   course, are newspapers. … Are not, in fact, all the essentials
   of a newspaper comprised in the definition of the second
   class, which it may be as well to repeat: 'Accounts in one
   publication of several public transactions of recent
   occurrence, only connected together by having taken place
   about the same period, so as at one time to form the news of
   the day'? Let us take an instance. There is preserved in the
   British Museum a collection of several volumes of interesting
   publications issued in Italy between 1640 and 1650, and
   containing the news of the times. They are of a small folio
   size, and consist in general of four pages, but sometimes of
   six, sometimes only of two. There is a series for the month of
   December, 1644, consisting entirely of the news from Rome. The
   first line of the first page runs thus:—'Di Roma,' with the
   date, first of the 3rd, then of the 10th, then the 17th, then
   the 24th, and lastly the 31st of December, showing that a
   number was published every week, most probably on the arrival
   of the post from Rome. The place of publication was Florence,
   and the same publishers who issued this collection of the news
   from Rome, sent forth in the same month of December, 1644, two
   other similar gazettes, at similar intervals, one of the news
   from Genoa, the other of the news from Germany and abroad.
   That this interesting series of publications, which is well
   worthy of a minute examination and a detailed description, is
   in reality a series of newspapers, will, I believe, be
   questioned by very few; but each individual number presents no
   mark by which, if separately met with, it could be known to
   form part of a set. …
{2593}
   The most minute researches on the history of newspapers in
   Germany are, as already mentioned, those of Prutz, who has
   collected notices of a large number of the 'relations,' though
   much remains to be gleaned. There are, for instance, in Van
   Heusde's Catalogue of the Library at Utrecht (Utrecht, 1835,
   folio), the titles of nearly a hundred of them, all as early
   as the sixteenth century; and the British Museum possesses a
   considerable quantity, all of recent acquisition. Prutz has no
   notice of the two that have been mentioned, and, like all
   preceding writers, he draws no distinction between the
   publications of the first class and the second. The view that
   he takes is, that no publication which does not answer to the
   definition of what I have termed the fourth class is entitled
   to the name of a newspaper. There was in the possession of
   Professor Grellman a publication called an 'Aviso,' numbered
   as '14,' and published in 1612, which has been considered by
   many German writers as their earliest newspaper, but Prutz
   denies that honour to it, on the ground of there being no
   proof that it was published at stated intervals. In the year
   1615 Egenolph Emmel, of Frankfort-on-the-Main, issued a weekly
   intelligencer, numbered in a series, and this, according to
   Prutz, is the proper claimant. Its history has been traced
   with some minuteness in a separate dissertation by
   Schwarzkopf, who has also the credit of having published in
   1795 the first general essay on newspapers of any value, and
   to have followed up the subject in a series of articles in the
   Allgemeine Litterarische Anzeiger. … The claims of Italy have
   yet to be considered. Prutz dismisses them very summarily,
   because, as he says, the Venetian gazettes of the sixteenth
   century, said to be preserved at Florence, are in manuscript,
   and it is essential to the definition of a newspaper that it
   should be printed. These Venetian gazettes have never, so far
   as I am aware, been described at all; they may be mere
   'news-letters,' or they may be something closely approaching
   to the modern newspaper. But I am strongly inclined to believe
   that something of the second class of Italian origin will turn
   up in the great libraries of Europe when further research is
   devoted to the subject. … The existence of these 'gazettes' in
   so many languages furnishes strong ground for supposing that
   the popularity of newspapers originated in Italy."

      _T. Watts,
      The fabricated "Earliest English Newspaper"
      (Gentleman's Magazine, 1850, reprinted in the Gentleman's
      Magazine Library; Bibliographical Notes, pages 146-150)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1617-1680.
   The Elzevirs.

   "Just as the house of Aldus waned and expired, that of the
   great Dutch printers, the Elzevirs, began obscurely enough at
   Leyden in 1583. The Elzevir's were not, like Aldus, ripe
   scholars and men of devotion to learning. Aldus laboured for
   the love of noble studies; the Elzevirs were acute, and too
   often 'smart' men of business. The founder of the family was
   Louis (born at Louvain, 1540, died 1617). But it was in the
   second and third generations that Bonaventura and Abraham
   Elzevir began to publish at Leyden their editions in small
   duodecimo. Like Aldus, these Elzevirs aimed at producing books
   at once handy, cheap, correct, and beautiful in execution.
   Their adventure was a complete success. The Elzevirs did not,
   like Aldus, surround themselves with the most learned scholars
   of their time. Their famous literary adviser, Heinsius, was
   full of literary jealousies, and kept students of his own
   calibre at a distance. The classical editions of the Elzevirs,
   beautiful, but too small in type for modern eyes, are anything
   but exquisitely correct. … The ordinary marks of the Elzevirs
   were the sphere, the old hermit, the Athena, the eagle, and
   the burning faggot. But all little old books marked with
   spheres are not Elzevirs, as many booksellers suppose. Other
   printers also stole the designs for the tops of chapters, the
   Aegipan, the Siren, the head of Medusa, the crossed sceptres,
   and the rest. In some cases the Elzevirs published their
   books, especially when they were piracies, anonymously. When
   they published for the Jansenists, they allowed their clients
   to put fantastic pseudonyms on the title pages. But, except in
   four cases, they had only two pseudonyms used on the titles of
   books published by and for themselves. These disguises are
   'Jean Sambix' for Jean and Daniel Elzevir, at Leyden, and 'for
   the Elzevirs of Amsterdam, 'Jacques le Jeune.' The last of the
   great representatives of the house, Daniel, died at Amsterdam,
   1680. Abraham, an unworthy scion, struggled on at Leyden till
   1712. The family still prospers, but no longer prints, in
   Holland."

      _A. Lang,
      The Library,
      chapter 3._

   "Though Elzevirs have been more fashionable than at present,
   they are still regarded by novelists as the great prize of the
   book collector. You read in novels about 'priceless little
   Elzevirs,' about books 'as rare as an old Elzevir.' I have
   met, in the works of a lady novelist (but not elsewhere) with
   an Elzevir 'Theocritus.' The late Mr. Hepworth Dixon
   introduced into one of his romances a romantic Elzevir Greek
   Testament, 'worth its weight in gold.' Casual remarks of this
   kind encourage a popular delusion that all Elzevirs are pearls
   of considerable price."

      _A. Lang,
      Books and Bookmen,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Slater,
      Book Collecting,
      chapter 8._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702.
   The first printed Newspaper and
   the first daily Newspaper in England.

   "Up to 1839 (when Mr. Watts, of the British Museum, exposed
   the forgery) the world was led to believe that the first
   English newspaper appeared in 1588." Mr. Watts "ascertained
   that 'The English Mercurie,' which Mr. George Chalmers first
   discovered on the shelves of the British Museum, and which was
   said to have been 'imprinted in London by her highness's
   printer, 1588,' was a forgery, for which the second Earl of
   Hardwicke appears to be answerable." As to the actual date of
   the appearance of the first printed newspaper in England, "Mr.
   Knight Hunt, in his 'Fourth Estate,' speaks confidently. …
   'There is now no reason to doubt,' he says, 'that the puny
   ancestor of the myriads of broad sheets of our time was
   published in the metropolis in 1622; and that the most
   prominent of the ingenious speculators who offered the novelty
   to the world, was one Nathaniel Butter.' As the printing press
   had then been at work in England for a century and a half,
   Caxton having established himself in Westminster Abbey in
   1471, and as manuscript news-letters had been current for many
   years previous to 1622, one cannot help wondering that the
   inventive wits of that age should have been so slow in finding
   out this excellent mode of turning Faust's invention to
   profitable account.
{2594}
   Butter's journal was called—'The Weekly Newes,' a name which
   still survives, although the original possessor of that title
   has long since gone the way of all newspapers. The first
   number in the British Museum collection bears date the 23rd of
   May, 1622, and contains 'news from Italy, Germanie,' &c. The
   last number made its appearance on the 9th of January, 1640; a
   memorable year, in which the Short Parliament, dismissed by
   King Charles 'in a huff,' after a session of three weeks, was
   succeeded by the Long Parliament, which unlucky Charles could
   not manage quite so easily. … It was nearly a century after
   'The Weekly Newes' made its first appearance, before a daily
   newspaper was attempted. When weekly papers had become firmly
   established, some of the more enterprising printers began to
   publish their sheets twice, and ultimately three times a week.
   Thus at the beginning of last century we find several papers
   informing the public that they are 'published every Tuesday,
   Thursday, and Saturday morning.' One of the most respectable
   looking was entitled 'The New State of Europe,' or a 'True
   Account of Public Transactions and Learning.' It consisted of
   two pages of thin, coarse paper … and contained altogether
   about as much matter as there is in a single column of the
   'Times' of 1855. The custom at that period was to publish the
   newspaper on a folio or quarto sheet, two pages of which were
   left blank to be used for correspondence. This is expressly
   stated in a standing advertisement in the 'New State of
   Europe,' in which the names of certain booksellers are given
   'where any person may have this paper with a blank half sheet
   to write their own private affairs.' … The first number of the
   'Daily Courant' [the first daily newspaper in England] was
   published on the 11th of March, 1702, just three days after
   the accession of Queen Anne. … As regards the form and size of
   the new journal, the 'author' condescends to give the
   following information, with a growling remark at the
   impertinence of the 'Postboys,' 'Postmen,' 'Mercuries,' and
   'Intelligencers' of that day:—'This "Courant" (as the title
   shows) will be published Daily, being designed to give all the
   Material News as soon as every Post arrives, and is confined
   to half the compass to save the Publick at least half the
   Impertinences of ordinary Newspapers.' In addition to the
   Prospectus we have quoted, the first number of the 'Daily
   Courant' contains only nine paragraphs, five of which were
   translated from the 'Harlem Courant,' three from the 'Paris
   Gazette,' and one from the 'Amsterdam Courant.' They all
   relate to the war of the Spanish Succession then waging, or to
   the attempts making by diplomats to settle the affairs of the
   Continent at some kind of Vienna or Utrecht Conference. After
   adhering for several weeks to the strict rule of giving only
   one page of news, and those entirely foreign, the 'Courant'
   begins to show certain symptoms of improvement. The number for
   April 22, contains two pages of news and advertisements. … The
   alteration in the getting-up of the 'Courant' was owing to a
   change of proprietorship. The paper had now come into the
   hands of 'Sam Buckley, at the Dolphin, Little Britain.' … Mr.
   Samuel Buckley, who continued to publish and conduct the
   'Daily Courant' for many years, was a notable man among London
   publishers, as we find from various references to him in the
   fugitive literature of that age."

      _The London Daily Press
      (Westminster Review, October, 1855)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1631.
   The first printed Newspaper in France.
   Dr. Renandot and his "Gazette."

   "The first Frenchman to found a printed newspaper was Dr.
   Théophraste Renaudot, who obtained the King's privilege for
   the 'Gazette de France' in 1631. … He was a shrewd man, born
   at London in 1567, brought up in Paris, but graduate of the
   Faculty of Montpellier. In 1612, being then twenty-six, he
   returned to the capital, and somehow got appointed at once
   doctor to the King. But there was no salary attached to this
   post, which was in his case purely honorary, and so Renaudot
   opened a school, though the fact that he, a mere provincial
   doctor, had obtained a medical appointment at court, was very
   sore to the Paris Faculty of Medicine, who began to annoy him
   from that moment. Renaudot, however, was a man far ahead of
   his contemporaries in sagacity, patience, learning and
   humanity. Petty spite did not disturb him, or at least it did
   not deter him from executing any of the numerous plans he had
   in mind for the welfare of his contemporaries. … This
   extraordinary man not only inaugurated in France an Estate,
   Professional and Servants' Agency, as well as an office for
   private sales and exchanges, but further laid the basis of the
   Poste Restante, Parcels Delivery, Post-Office Directory,
   Tourist's Guide and Money Order Office; besides affording an
   outlet to troubled spirits like those who correspond through
   the agony column of 'The Times.' It is not surprising that his
   office in the Rue de la Calandre should soon have been all too
   small for its multifarious duties and that his original staff
   of six clerks should, in less than three months, have swelled
   to fifty. Richelieu, in sheer admiration at the man, sent for
   him and thanked him for the services he was rendering the
   King's subjects. He also offered him money to extend his
   offices, and this Renaudot accepted, but only as a loan. It
   was his custom to levy a commission of six deniers per livre
   (franc) on the sales he effected, and by means of these and
   other receipts he soon repaid the Cardinal every penny that
   had been advanced to him. But he did more than this. Finding
   that his registers were not always convenient modes of
   reference, by reason of the excessive crowds which pressed
   round them, he brought out a printed advertiser, which is
   almost the exact prototype of a journal at present well known
   in London. It was called 'Feuille du Bureau d'Adresses,' and
   appeared every Saturday, at the price of 1 sou. Opinions
   differ as to whether this paper preceded the 'Gazette de
   France,' or was issued simultaneously with it. Probably it was
   first published in manuscript form, but came out in print at
   least six months before the 'Gazette,' for a number bearing
   the date of June 14th, 1631, shows a periodical in full
   organisation and containing indirect references to
   advertisements which must have appeared several weeks before.
   At all events this 'Feuille' was purely an advertisement
   sheet—a forerunner of the 'Petites Affiches' which were
   reinvented in 1746—it was in no sense a newspaper. … It is
   clear that from the moment he started his 'Feuille du Bureau
   d'Adresses,' Renaudot must have conceived the possibility of
   founding a news-sheet. … The manuscript News Letters had
   attained, by the year 1630, to such a pitch of perfection, and
   found such a ready sale, that the notion of further
   popularising them by printing must have suggested itself to
   more than one man before it was actually put into practice.
{2595}
   But the great bar was this, that nothing could be printed
   without the King's privilege, and this privilege was not
   lightly granted. … Renaudot, who had no wish to publish
   tattle, had no reason to fear censorship. He addressed himself
   to Richelieu, and craved leave to start a printed newspaper
   under royal patronage. The politic Cardinal was quite shrewd
   enough to see how useful might be to him an organ which would
   set information before the public in the manner he desired,
   and in that manner alone; so he granted all Renaudot wished,
   in the form of 'letters patent,' securing him an entire
   monopoly of printing newspapers, and moreover he conferred on
   his protégé the pompous title of Historiographer of France.
   The first number of the 'Gazette de France' appeared on
   Friday, May 30, 1631. Its size was four quarto pages, and its
   price one sol parisis, i. e. ½d., worth about l½d. modern
   money. … The first number contained no preface or address,
   nothing in the way of a leading article, but plunged at once
   in medias res, and gave news from nineteen foreign towns or
   countries, but oddly enough, not a line of French
   intelligence. … The bulk of the matter inserted was furnished
   direct by Richelieu from the Foreign Office, and several of
   the paragraphs were written in his own hand. … The publication
   of the 'Gazette' was continued uninterruptedly from week to
   week but the press of matter was so great that Renaudot took
   to issuing a Supplement with the last number of every month.
   In this he condensed the reports of the preceding numbers,
   corrected errors, added fresh news, and answered his
   detractors. … At the end of the year 1631 he suppressed his
   monthly Supplement, increased the 'Gazette' to eight pages,
   and announced that for the future he would issue supplements
   as they were needed. It seems they were needed pretty often,
   for towards the beginning of the year 1633 Renaudot published
   Supplements, under the title of 'Ordinaries and
   Extraordinaries,' as often as twice, and even three times in
   one week. In fact whenever a budget of news arrived which
   would nowadays justify a special edition, the indefatigable
   editor set his criers afoot with a fresh printed sheet,
   shouting, 'Buy the "Extraordinary," containing the account of
   the superb burial of the King of Denmark!' or, 'Buy and read
   of the capture of the beautiful island of Curaçoa in the
   Indies by the Dutch from the Spaniards!' Renaudot understood
   the noble art of puffing. He dressed his criers in red, and
   gave them a trumpet apiece to go and bray the praises of the
   'Gazette' on the off days, when the paper did not appear. … On
   the death of Renaudot, he was succeeded by his sons Eusèbe and
   Isaac, who in their turn bequeathed the Gazette' to Eusèbe
   junior, son of the elder brother, who took orders and
   consequently left no progeny. After this the 'Gazette' became
   Government property. … In 1762 the 'Gazette' was annexed to
   the Foreign Office Department. … The 'Gazette de France'
   continued to appear under royal patronage until May 1st, 1792,
   when its official ties were snapped and it came out as a
   private and republican journal with the date 'Fourth Year of
   Freedom.' The 'Gazette' has flourished with more or less
   brilliancy ever since, and has been for the last fifty years a
   legitimist organ, read chiefly in the provinces."

      _The French Press
      (Cornhill Magazine, June, 1873)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1637.
   Archbishop Laud's Star-Chamber restriction of printing.

   On the 11th of July, 1637, "Archbishop Laud procured a decree
   to be passed in the star chamber, by which it was ordered,
   that the master printers should be reduced to twenty in
   number; and that if any other should secretly, or openly,
   pursue the trade of printing, he should be set in the pillory,
   or whipped through the streets, and suffer such other
   punishment as the court should inflict upon him; that none of
   the master printers should print any book or books of
   divinity, law, physic, philosophy, or poetry, till the said
   books, together with the titles, epistles, prefaces, tables,
   or commendatory verses, should be lawfully licensed, on pain
   of losing the exercise of his art, and being proceeded against
   in the star chamber, &c.; that no person should reprint any
   book without a new license; that every merchant, bookseller,
   &c., who should import any book or books, should present a
   catalogue of them to the archbishop or bishop, &c., before
   they were delivered, or exposed to sale, who should view them,
   with power to seize those that were schismatical; and, that no
   merchant, &c., should print or cause to be printed abroad, any
   book, or books, which either entirely or for the most part,
   were written in the English tongue, nor knowingly import any
   such books, upon pain of being proceeded against in the star
   chamber, or high commission court. … That there should be four
   founders of letters for printing, and no more. That the
   archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of London, with six
   other high commissioners, shall supply the places of those
   four as they shall become void. That no master founder shall
   keep above two apprentices at one time. That all journeymen
   founders be employed by the masters of the trade; and that all
   the idle journeymen be compelled to work upon pain of
   imprisonment, and such other punishment as the court shall
   think fit. That no master founder of letters shall employ any
   other person in any work belonging to casting and founding of
   letters than freemen and apprentices to the trade, save only
   in putting off the knots of metal hanging at the end of the
   letters when they are first cast; in which work, every master
   founder may employ one boy only, not bound to the trade."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      page 490._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1647.
   Renewed ordinance, in England, against the printers.

   "An ordinance of parliament passed the house of lords on this
   day [September 30, 1647], that no person shall make, write,
   print, sell, publish or utter, or cause to be made, &c., any
   book, pamphlet, treatise, ballad, libel, sheet, or sheets of
   news whatsoever (except the same be licensed by both or either
   house of parliament,) under the penalty of 40s. and an
   imprisonment not exceeding forty days, if he can not pay it:
   if a printer, he is to pay a fine of only 20s., or suffer
   twenty days' imprisonment, and likewise to have his press and
   implements of printing broken in pieces. The book-seller, or
   stationer, to pay 10s., or suffer ten days' imprisonment,—and,
   lastly, the hawker, pedlar, or ballad-singer, to forfeit all
   his printed papers exposed to sale, and to be whipped as a
   common rogue in the parish where he shall be apprehended.
{2596}
   Early in the following year, the committee of estates in
   Scotland passed an act prohibiting the printing under the pain
   of death, any book, declaration, or writing, until these were
   first submitted to their revisal. … One of the consequences of
   these persecutions was the raising up of a new class of
   publishers, those who became noted for what was called
   'unlawful and unlicensed books.' Sparkes, the publisher of
   Prynne's Histriomastix, was of this class. The presbyterian
   party in parliament, who thus found the press closed on them,
   vehemently cried out for its freedom; and it was imagined,
   that when they ascended into power, the odious office of a
   licenser of the press would have been abolished; but these
   pretended friends of freedom, on the contrary, discovered
   themselves as tenderly alive to the office as the old
   government, and maintained it with the extremest vigour. Both
   in England and Scotland, during the civil wars, the party in
   power endeavoured to crush by every means the freedom of the
   press."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopœdia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      page 506._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694.
   Freedom of the press under Cromwell.
   Censorship under the restored Stuarts.
   Roger L'Estrange and the first news reporters.

   "During the Protectorate of Cromwell the newspaper press knew
   … what it was to enjoy the luxury of freedom. The natural
   result was that a very great increase took place in the number
   of new political journals. Most of them, however, had only a
   very brief existence. Many of their number could not boast of
   a longer life than six or seven months—nay, many of them not
   so much as even that term of life. But, as might have been
   expected, from what was known of the antecedents of Charles
   II., the freedom of the press, which previously existed, came
   to an immediate end on his ascending the throne. Hardly had he
   done so, than an edict was issued, prohibiting the publication
   of any journal except the London Gazette, which was originally
   printed at Oxford, and called the Oxford Gazette,—the Court
   being then resident there on account of the plague raging in
   London at the time, 1665, when it was commenced, and for some
   time afterwards. This was an act of pure despotism. But
   Government at this time reserved to itself the right —a right
   which there was none to dispute—to publish a broad sheet in
   connexion with the London Gazette, whenever they might deem it
   expedient, which should contain either foreign or domestic
   matters of interest,—of the knowledge of which some of the
   King's subjects might wish to be put in early possession. …
   The newspapers of the seventeenth century were permitted,
   until the time of Charles II., to be published without being
   licensed by the Government of the day; but in the reign of
   that despotic sovereign, a law was passed [1662] prohibiting
   the publication of any newspaper without being duly licensed.
   … Sir John Birkenhead, … one of the three men whom Disraeli
   the elder called the fathers of the English press, was
   appointed to the office of Licenser of the Press. But he was
   soon succeeded by Sir Roger l'Estrange."

      _J. Grant,
      The Newspaper Press,
      volume 1, chapter. 2._

   Roger L'Estrange "is remarkable for having been the writer of
   the best newspapers which appeared before the age of Queen
   Anne, and, at the same time, a most bitter enemy to the
   freedom of the press. He was appointed licenser or censor in
   1663, and in the same year was given authority to publish all
   newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets, not exceeding two
   sheets in size. He appears to have looked upon his newspaper
   as a noxious thing, suffered to exist only that an income
   might be created for him in return for the labour of purging
   the press. Yet he spared no pains to make his Public
   Intelligencer readable, and if we may trust his letters now
   preserved at the State Paper Office, expended in the first
   year more than £500 on 'spyes for collecting intelligence.'
   Three years afterwards he estimated the profits at £400 a
   year. … He sent paid correspondents, or 'spyes' as they were
   called, to all parts of the country, and even induced some
   respectable persons, under promise of concealing their names,
   to contribute occasional paragraphs; these persons were for
   the most part repaid by sending to them their newspapers and
   letters free of postage. Another set of 'spyes' was employed
   in picking up the news of the town on Paul's Walk or in the
   taverns and coffee–houses. L'Estrange printed about sixteen
   reams of his Intelligencer weekly, which were for the most
   part sold by the mercury-women who cried them about the
   streets. One Mrs. Andrews is said to have taken more than
   one-third of the whole quantity printed. … Advantage was taken
   of a slip in the weekly intelligence to deprive L'Estrange of
   his monopoly in favour of the new Oxford Gazette, published in
   the winter of 1665 and transferred to London in the ensuing
   spring. The Gazette was placed under the control of
   Williamson, then a rising under-Secretary of State, under
   whose austere influence nothing was suffered to appear which
   could excite or even amuse the public. … L'Estrange has not
   been a favourite with historians, and we confess that his
   harsh measures towards the press are apt to raise a feeling of
   repugnance. … But he was certainly an enthusiastic and
   industrious writer, who raised the tone of the press, even
   while taking pains to fetter its liberty. When he lost his
   monopoly, that era of desolation began which Macaulay has so
   forcibly described. The newspapers became completely sterile,
   omitting events even of such importance as the trial of the
   seven bishops, and were supplanted in popular favour by the
   manuscript news-letters, which were, in fact, the only
   journals of importance. On the day after the abdication of
   James II. three fresh newspapers appeared, and many more burst
   out after the appearance of the official journal under the
   style of the Orange Gazette. But it was not until 1694 that
   the king was induced to abolish the censorship and to permit
   free trade in news; 'he doubted much,' says Hume, 'of the
   salutary effects of such unlimited freedom.' The newspapers
   increased and multiplied exceedingly for the eighteen years
   between the abolition of the office of licenser and the
   passing of the Stamp Act, in 1712, by which a halfpenny tax
   was laid on every half-sheet of intelligence."

      _Early English Newspapers
      (Cornhill Magazine, July, 1868)._

{2597}

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1685-1693.
   William Bradford and his Press in Philadelphia and New York.

   William Bradford, a young printer, of the Society of Friends,
   came to Philadelphia in the autumn of 1685, and established
   himself in business. "His first publication was 'Kalendarium
   Pennsilvaniense, or America's Messenger; Being an Almanack for
   the Year of Grace 1686.' This brought him a summons before the
   Governor and Council, for referring to the Proprietary, in the
   table of chronology, ns 'Lord Penn;' and, on his appearance,
   he was ordered to blot out the objectionable title, and
   forbidden to print anything without license from the
   Provincial Council. In 1687 he was cautioned by the
   Philadelphia meeting not to print anything touching the
   Quakers without its approval. Two years later he was again
   called before the Governor, and Council—this time for printing
   the charter of the province. The spirited report, in his own
   handwriting, of his examination on this occasion, is now
   preserved in the collection of the New York Historical
   Society. Disappointed at the non-fulfilment of Penn's promise
   of the government printing and the failure of his scheme for
   printing an English Bible, which, although indorsed by the
   meeting, found few subscribers, and harassed by both the civil
   and religious authorities, Bradford determined to leave the
   province," which he did, with his family, sailing to England
   in 1689. He was induced, however, by promises of increased
   business and a yearly salary of £40, to return. In 1692,
   having become one of the supporters of George Keith, and
   having printed Keith's "Appeal", he was arrested and
   imprisoned.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

   This occurred in August, and his trial followed in December.
   The jury disagreed, and he was held for appearance at the next
   court. "In the meantime the dissensions in the province
   aroused by the Keithian schism had led to the abrogation of
   Penn's charter by the crown, and the appointment of Benjamin
   Fletcher to be Royal Governor of Pennsylvania as well as New
   York." This change led to the dropping of proceedings against
   Bradford, and to his removal from Philadelphia to New York,
   whither he seems to have been invited. His removal was
   undoubtedly prompted by a resolution which the Provincial
   Council of New York adopted on the 23d of March, 1693: "That
   if a Printer will come and settle in the city of New York for
   the printing of our Acts of Assembly and Publick Papers, he
   shall be allowed the sum of £40 current money of New York per
   annum for his salary and have the benefit of his printing
   besides what serves the publick." "Bradford's first warrant
   for his salary as 'Printer to King William and Queen Mary, at
   the City of New York,' was dated October 12, 1693, and was for
   six months, due on the 10th preceding," showing that he had
   established himself in the colony more hospitable to his art
   as early as the 10th of April, 1693. "What was the first
   product of his press is a matter of doubt. It may have been,
   as Dr. Moore suggests, the 'Journal of the Late Actions of the
   French at Canada,' or 'New England's Spirit of Persecution
   Transmitted to Pennsilvania'"—which was a report of his own
   trial at Philadelphia—or it may have been an Act of the New
   York Assembly—one of three which his press produced early that
   year, but the priority among which is uncertain.

      _C. R Hildeburn,
      Printing in New York in the 17th Century
      (Memorial History of the City of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 15.)_

      ALSO IN:
      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      2d edition, volume 1._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
   Expiration of the Censorship law in England.
   Quick multiplication of Newspapers.

   "While the Licensing Act was in force there was no newspaper
   in England except the 'London Gazette,' which was edited by a
   clerk in the office of the Secretary of State, and which
   contained nothing but what the Secretary of State wished the
   nation to know. There were indeed many periodical papers: but
   none of those papers could be called a newspaper. Welwood, a
   zealous Whig, published a journal called the Observator: but
   his Observator, like the Observator which Lestrange had
   formerly edited, contained, not the news, but merely
   dissertations on politics. A crazy bookseller, named John
   Dunton, published the Athenian Mercury: but the Athenian
   Mercury merely discussed questions of natural philosophy, of
   casuistry and of gallantry. A fellow of the Royal Society,
   named John Houghton, published what he called a Collection for
   the Improvement of Industry and Trade: but his Collection
   contained little more than the prices of stocks, explanations
   of the modes of doing business in the City, puffs of new
   projects, and advertisements of books, quack medicines,
   chocolate, Spa water, civet cats, surgeons wanting ships,
   valets wanting masters, and ladies wanting husbands. If ever
   he printed any political news, he transcribed it from the
   Gazette. The Gazette was so partial and so meagre a chronicle
   of events that, though it had no competitors, it had but a
   small circulation. … But the deficiencies of the Gazette were
   to a certain extent supplied in London by the coffeehouses,
   and in the country by the news-letters. On the third of May
   1695 the law which had subjected the press to a censorship
   expired. Within a fortnight, a stanch old Whig, named Harris,
   who had, in the days of the Exclusion Bill, attempted to set
   up a newspaper entitled Intelligence Domestic and Foreign, and
   who had been speedily forced to relinquish that design,
   announced that the Intelligence Domestic and Foreign,
   suppressed fourteen years before by tyranny, would again
   appear. Ten days later was printed the first number of the
   English Courant. Then came the Packet Boat from Holland and
   Flanders, the Pegasus, the London Newsletter, the London Post,
   the Flying Post, the Old Postmaster, the Postboy, and the
   Postman. The history of the newspapers of England from that
   time to the present day is a most interesting and instructive
   part of the history of the country. At first they were small
   and mean-looking. … Only two numbers came out in a week; and a
   number contained little more matter than may be found in a
   single column of a daily paper of our time."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 21._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
   The first Newspapers in America.

   "There was not a newspaper published in the English colonies,
   throughout the extensive continent of North America, until the
   24th of April, 1704. John Campbell, a Scotchman, who was a
   bookseller and postmaster in Boston, was the first who began
   and established a publication of this kind. It was entitled
   'The Boston News-Letter.' … It is printed on half a sheet of
   pot paper, with a small pica type, folio.
{2598}
   The first page is filled with an extract from 'The London
   Flying Post,' respecting the pretender. … The queen's speech
   to both houses of parliament on that occasion, a few articles
   under the Boston head, four short paragraphs of marine
   intelligence from New York, Philadelphia, and New London, and
   one advertisement, form its whole contents. The advertisement
   is from Campbell, the proprietor of the paper." In 1719, a
   rival paper was started in Boston, called the "Gazette," and
   in 1721, a third, founded by James Franklin, took the name of
   "The New England Courant." Meantime there had appeared at
   Philadelphia, on the 22nd of December, 1719,—only one day
   later than the second of the Boston newspapers—"The American
   Weekly Mercury," printed by Andrew Bradford, son of William
   Bradford. The same printer, Andrew Bradford, removing to New
   York, brought out "The New York Gazette," the first newspaper
   printed in that city, in October, 1725.

      _I. Thomas,
      History of Printing in America,
      volume 2, page 12, and after._

   "In 1740, the number of newspapers in the English colonies on
   the continent had increased to eleven, of which one appeared
   in South Carolina, one in Virginia, three in Pennsylvania—one
   of them being in German—one in New York, and the remaining
   five in Boston. … The New England 'Courant,' the fourth
   American periodical, was, in August 1721, established by James
   Franklin as an organ of independent opinion. Its temporary
   success was advanced by Benjamin, his brother and apprentice,
   a boy of fifteen, who wrote for its columns, worked in
   composing the types as well as printing off the sheets, and,
   as carrier, distributed the papers to the customers. The sheet
   satirized hypocrisy, and spoke of religious knaves as of all
   knaves the worst. This was described as tending 'to abuse the
   ministers of religion in a manner which was intolerable.' … In
   July 1722, a resolve passed the council, appointing a censor
   for the press of James Franklin; but the house refused its
   concurrence. The ministers persevered; and, in January 1723, a
   committee of inquiry was raised by the legislature. Benjamin,
   being examined, escaped with an admonition; James, the
   publisher, refusing to discover the author of the offence, was
   kept in jail for a month; his paper was censured as reflecting
   injuriously on the reverend ministers of the gospel; and, by
   vote of the house and council, he was forbidden to print it,
   'except it be first supervised.' Vexed at the arbitrary
   proceedings, Benjamin Franklin, then but seventeen years old,
   in October 1723, sailed clandestinely for New York. Finding
   there no employment, he crossed to Amboy; went on foot to the
   Delaware; for want of a wind, rowed in a boat from Burlington
   to Philadelphia; and bearing marks of his labor at the oar,
   weary, hungry, having for his whole stock of cash a single
   dollar, the runaway apprentice—the pupil of the free schools
   of Boston, rich in the boundless hope of youth and the
   unconscious power of modest genius—stepped on shore to seek
   food and occupation. On the deep foundations of sobriety,
   frugality and industry, the young journeyman built his
   fortunes and fame; and he soon came to have a printing-office
   of his own. … The assembly of Pennsylvania chose him its
   printer. He planned a newspaper [the 'Pennsylvania Gazette'];
   and, when (1729] he became its proprietor and editor, he
   defended freedom of thought and speech, and the inalienable
   power of the people."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States of America,
      part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      parts 1-2 (volume l)._

      _B. Franklin,
      Life by Himself,
      edited by J. Bigelow,
      part 1._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1709-1752.
   The Periodicals of the Essayists.
   The "Tatler," "Spectator," and their successors.

   "In the spring of 1709, Steele [Sir Richard] formed a literary
   project, of which he was far indeed from foreseeing the
   consequences. Periodical papers had during many years been
   published in London. Most of these were political; but in some
   of them questions of morality, taste, and love-casuistry had
   been discussed. The literary merit of these works was small
   indeed; and even their names are now known only to the
   curious. Steele had been appointed gazetteer by Sunderland, at
   the request, it is said, of Addison; and thus had access to
   foreign intelligence earlier and more authentic than was in
   those times within the reach of an ordinary news-writer. This
   circumstance seems to have suggested to him the scheme of
   publishing a periodical paper on a new plan. It was to appear
   on the days on which the post left London for the country,
   which were, in that generation, the Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
   Saturdays. It was to contain the foreign news, accounts of
   theatrical representations, and the literary gossip of Will's
   and of the Grecian. It was also to contain remarks on the
   fashionable topics of the day, compliments to beauties,
   pasquinades on noted sharpers, and criticisms on popular
   preachers. The aim of Steele does not appear to have been at
   first higher than this. … Issac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
   Astrologer, was an imaginary person, almost as well known in
   that age as Mr. Paul Pry or Mr. Pickwick in ours. Swift had
   assumed the name of Bickerstaff in a satirical pamphlet
   against Partridge, the almanac-maker. Partridge had been fool
   enough to publish a furious reply. Bickerstaff had rejoined in
   a second pamphlet still more diverting than the first. All the
   wits had combined to keep up the joke, and the town was long
   in convulsions of laughter. Steele determined to employ the
   name which this controversy had made popular; and, in April,
   1709, it was announced that Isaac Bickerstaff, Esquire,
   Astrologer, was about to publish a paper called the 'Tatler.'
   Addison had not been consulted about this scheme; but as soon
   as he heard of it, he determined to give it his assistance.
   The effect of that assistance cannot be better described than
   in Steele's own words. 'I fared,' he said, 'like a distressed
   prince who calls in a powerful neighbour to his aid. I was
   undone by my auxiliary. When I had once called him in, I could
   not subsist without dependence on him.' 'The paper,' he says
   elsewhere, 'was advanced indeed. It was raised to a greater
   thing than I intended it.'"

      _Lord Macaulay.
      Life and Writings of Addison (Essays)._

   "Steele, on the 12th of April 1709, issued the first number of
   the 'Tatler.' … This famous newspaper, printed in one folio
   sheet of 'tobacco paper' with 'scurvy letter,' ran to 271
   numbers, and abruptly ceased to appear in January 1711. It
   enjoyed an unprecedented success, for, indeed, nothing that
   approached it had ever before been issued from the periodical
   press in England. The division of its contents was thus
   arranged by the editor: 'All accounts of gallantry, pleasure,
   and entertainment shall be under the article of White's
   Chocolate House; poetry under that of Will's Coffee-House;
   learning under the title of Grecian; foreign and domestic news
   you will have from St. James's Coffee-House; and what else I
   shall on any other subject offer shall be dated from my own
   apartment.'
{2599}
   The political news gradually ceased to appear. … Of the 271
   'Tatlers,' 188 were written by Steele, 42 by Addison, and 36
   by both conjointly. Three were from the pen of John Hughes. …
   These, at least, are the numbers usually given, but the
   evidence on which they are based is slight. It rests mainly
   upon the indications given by Steele to Tickell when the
   latter was preparing his edition of Addison's Works. The
   conjecture may be hazarded that there were not a few Tatlers
   written by Addison which he was not anxious to claim as his
   particular property. … Addison, … remained Steele's firm
   friend, and less than two months after the cessation of the
   'Tatler' there appeared the first number of a still more
   famous common enterprise, the 'Spectator,' on the 1st of March
   1711. It was announced to appear daily, and was to be composed
   of the reflections and actions of the members of an imaginary
   club, formed around 'Mr. Spectator.' In this club the most
   familiar figure is the Worcestershire Knight, Sir Roger de
   Coverley, the peculiar property of Addison. … The 'Spectator'
   continued to appear daily until December 1712. It consisted of
   555 numbers, of which Addison wrote 274, Steele 236, Hughes
   19, and Pope 1 (The Messiah, 'Spectator' 378). Another
   contributor was Eustace Budgell (1685-1736), Addison's cousin.
   … The 'Spectator' enjoyed so very unequivocal a success that
   it has puzzled historians to account for its discontinuance.
   In No. 517 Addison killed Sir Roger de Coverley 'that nobody
   else might murder him.' This shows a voluntary intention to
   stop the publication, which the Stamp Act itself had not been
   able to do by force."

      _E. Gosse,
      A History of Eighteenth Century Literature,
      chapter 6._

   "After this, in 1713, came the 'Guardian'; and in 1714 an
   eighth volume of the 'Spectator' was issued by Addison alone.
   He was also the sole author of the 'Freeholder,' 1715, which
   contains the admirable sketch of the 'Tory Foxhunter.' Steele,
   on his side, followed up the 'Guardian' by the 'Lover,' the
   'Reader,' and half-a–dozen abortive efforts; but his real
   successes, as well as those of Addison, were in the three
   great collections for which they worked together. … Between
   the 'Guardian' of 1713 and the 'Rambler' of 1750-2 there were
   a number of periodical essayists of varying merit. It is
   scarcely necessary to recall the names of these now forgotten
   'Intelligencers,' 'Moderators,' 'Remembrancers,' and the like,
   the bulk of which were political. Fielding places one of them,
   the 'Freethinker' of Philips, nearly on a level with 'those
   great originals the "Tatlers" and the "Spectators;"' but the
   initial chapters to the different books of 'Tom Jones' attract
   us more forcibly to the author's own 'Champion,' written in
   conjunction with the Ralph who 'makes night hideous' in the
   'Dunciad.' … Another of Fielding's enterprises in the
   'Spectator' vein was the 'Covent Garden Journal,' 1752. …
   Concurrently with the 'Covent Garden Journal' appeared the
   final volume of Johnson's 'Rambler,' a work upon the cardinal
   defect of which its author laid his finger, when in later
   life, he declared it to be 'too wordy.' Lady Mary said in her
   smart way that the 'Rambler' followed the 'Spectator' as a
   pack horse would do a hunter. … In the twenty-nine papers
   which Johnson wrote for Hawkesworth's 'Adventurer,' the
   'Rambler' style is maintained. In the 'Idler,' however, which
   belongs to a later date, when its author's mind was unclouded,
   and he was comparatively free from the daily pressure" of
   necessity, he adopts a simpler and less polysyllabic style."

      _A. Dobson,
      Eighteenth Century Essays,
      introduction._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1712.
   The first Stamp Tax on Newspapers in England.

   The first stamp tax on newspapers in England went into effect
   on the 12th day of August, 1712. "An act had passed the
   legislature, that 'for every pamphlet or paper contained in
   half a sheet, or lesser piece of paper so printed, the sum of
   one halfpenny sterling: and for every such pamphlet or paper
   being larger than half a sheet, and not exceeding one whole
   sheet, so printed, a duty after the rate of one penny sterling
   for every sheet printed thereof.' This act, which was to curb
   the licentiousness of the press, was to be in force for the
   space of thirty-two years, to be reckoned from the 10th day of
   June, 1712. Addison, in the 'Spectator' of this day, says,
   'this is the day on which many eminent authors will probably
   publish their last works. I am afraid that few of our weekly
   historians, who are men that above all others delight in war,
   will be able to subsist under the weight of a stamp duty in an
   approaching peace. In short, the necessity of carrying a
   stamp, and the impracticability of notifying a bloody battle,
   will, I am afraid, both concur to the sinking of these thin
   folios which have every other day related to us the history of
   Europe for several years last past. A facetious friend of
   mine, who loves a pun, calls this present mortality among
   authors, "the fall of the leaf.'" On this tax Dean Swift thus
   humorously alludes in his Journal to Stella, as follows
   (August 7):—'Do you know that all Grub-street is dead and gone
   last week? No more Ghosts or murders now for love or money. I
   plied it close the last fortnight, and published at least
   seven papers of my own, besides some of other people's; but
   now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the queen. The
   'Observator' is fallen; the 'Medleys' are jumbled together
   with the 'Flying Post'; the 'Examiner' is deadly sick; the
   'Spectator' keeps up and doubles its price; I know not how
   long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are
   marked with? Methinks the stamping is worth a half-penny.' The
   stamp mark upon the newspapers was a rose and thistle joined
   by the stalks, and enclosing between the Irish shamrock, the
   whole three were surmounted by a crown. … It is curious to
   observe what an effect this trifling impost had upon the
   circulation of the most favourite papers. Many were entirely
   discontinued, and several of those which survived were
   generally united into one publication. The bill operated in a
   directly contrary manner to what the ministers had
   anticipated; for the opposition, who had more leisure, and
   perhaps more acrimony of feeling, were unanimous in the
   support of their cause. The adherents of ministers, who were
   by no means behind the opposition in their proficiency in the
   topic of defamation, were, it seems, not so strenuously
   supported; and the measure thus chiefly destroyed those whom
   it was Bolinbroke's interest to protect.
{2600}
   For some reason, which we have not been able to trace, the
   stamp-duties were removed shortly after their imposition, and
   were not again enforced until 1725. In order to understand how
   so small a duty as one halfpenny should operate so strongly
   upon these periodical publications, we must look at the price
   at which they were vended at that period. The majority of them
   were published at a penny, many at a halfpenny, and some were
   even published so low as a farthing."

      _C. H. Timperley,
      Encyclopædia of Literary and Typographical Anecdote,
      pages 601-602._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1723.
   End of Newspaper monopoly in France.

   "Until Louis XVI. was dethroned, Paris was officially supposed
   to possess but three periodicals: the 'Gazette de France' for
   politics, 'Le Journal des Savants' for literature and science,
   and the 'Mercure de France' for politics, literature, and
   social matters mingled. For a time these monopolies were
   respected, but only for a very short time. … During the
   Regency of the Duke of Orleans (1715-23), the 'Gazette de
   France,' 'Mercure,' and 'Journal des Savants' combined to
   bring an action for infringement against all the papers then
   existing, but they were non-suited on a technical objection;
   and this was their last attempt at asserting their
   prerogative."

      _The French Press
      (Cornhill Magazine, October, 1873)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
   Zenger's trial in New York.
   Determination of the freedom of the Press.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
   Freedom of Parliamentary reporting won in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1777.
   The first Daily Newspaper in France.

   "In 1777 there appeared the 'Journal de Paris,' which only
   deserves notice from its being the first daily paper issued in
   France."

      _Westminster Review,
      July 1860, page 219._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1784-1813.
   The earliest daily Newspapers in the United States.

   "The first daily newspaper published in the United States was
   the 'American Daily Advertiser.' It was issued in Philadelphia
   in 1784, by Benjamin Franklin Bache, afterwards of the Aurora.
   When the seat of national government was in Philadelphia, it
   shared the confidence and support of Jefferson with the
   'National Gazette.' It was strong in its opposition to the
   Federal section of the administration of Washington, and to
   all the measures originating with Hamilton. Zachariah Poulson
   became its proprietor and publisher in 1802, and it was known
   as 'Poulson's Advertiser,' and we believe he continued its
   publisher till October 28, 1839, when the establishment was
   sold to Brace and Newbold, the publishers of a new paper
   called the 'North American.' The name after that was the
   'North American and Daily Advertiser.' … The 'New York Daily
   Advertiser,' the second real journal in the United States, was
   published in 1785. It was commenced on the 1st of March by
   Francis Childs & Co. … On the 29th of July, 1786, the
   'Pittsburg (Pennsylvania) Gazette,' the first newspaper
   printed west of the Alleghany Mountains, appeared, and in 1796
   the 'Post' was issued. … 'The United States Gazette' was
   started in New York in 1789 by John Fenno, of Boston. Its
   original name was 'Gazette of the United States.' It was first
   issued in New York, because the seat of the national
   government was then in that city. When Congress removed to
   Philadelphia in 1790, the 'Gazette' went with that body. In
   1792 it was the special organ of Alexander Hamilton. … Noah
   Webster, the lexicographer of America, was a lawyer in 1793,
   and had an office in Hartford, Connecticut. 'Washington's
   administration was then violently assailed by the 'Aurora,'
   'National Gazette,' and other organs of the Republican Party,
   and by the partisans of France. Jefferson was organizing the
   opposition elements, and Hamilton was endeavoring to
   strengthen the Federal party. Newspapers were established on
   each side as the chief means of accomplishing the objects each
   party had in view. Noah Webster was considered, in this state
   of affairs, the man to aid the Federalists journalistically in
   New York. He was, therefore, induced to remove to that city
   and take charge of a Federal organ. On the 9th of December,
   1793, he issued the first number of a daily paper, which was
   named the 'Minerva.' According to its imprint, it appeared
   'every day, Sundays excepted, at four o'clock, or earlier if
   the arrival of the mail will permit.' … With the 'Minerva' was
   connected a semi-weekly paper called the 'Herald.' … The names
   of 'Minerva' and 'Herald' were shortly changed to those of
   'Commercial Advertiser' and 'New York Spectator,' and these
   names have continued. … The 'Commercial Advertiser' is the
   oldest daily newspaper in the metropolis. Of the hundreds of
   daily papers started in New York, from the time of Bradford's
   Gazette in 1725 to the 'Journal of Commerce' in 1827, there
   are now [1872] only two survivors—the 'Evening Post' and the
   'Commercial Advertiser.' … The first prominent daily paper
   issued in New England was the Boston Daily Advertiser, the
   publication of which was commenced on the 3d of March, 1813.
   There was a daily paper begun in that city on the 6th of
   October, 1796, by Alexander Martin, and edited by John O'Ley
   Burk, one of the 'United Irishmen.' It lived about six months.
   It was called the Polar Star and Boston Daily Advertiser.
   Another was attempted on the 1st of January, 1798, by Caleb P.
   Wayne, who was afterwards editor of the United States Gazette
   of Philadelphia. This second daily paper of Boston was named
   the Federal Gazette and Daily Advertiser. It lived three
   months. The third attempt at a daily paper in the capital of
   Massachusetts was a success. It was published by William W.
   Clapp, afterwards of the Saturday Evening Gazette, and edited
   by Horatio Biglow."

      _F. Hudson,
      Journalism in the United States,
      pages 175-194, and 378._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1785-1812.
   The founding of "The Times," in London.
   The beginning of "leading articles."

   The newspaper afterwards famous as "The Times" was started, in
   1785, under the name of the "Daily Universal Register," and
   did not adopt the title of "The Times" until the 1st of
   January, 1788.

      _J. Grant,
      The Newspaper Press,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

   "All the newspapers that can be said to have been
   distinguished in any way till the appearance of the 'Times'
   were distinguished by some freak of cleverness. … The 'Times'
   took up a line of its own from the first day of its existence.
   The proprietors staked their fortunes upon the general
   character of their paper, upon the promptitude and accuracy of
   its intelligence, upon its policy, upon the frank and
   independent spirit of its comments on public men. … The chief
   proprietor of the 'Times' was John Walter—a man who knew
   nothing or next to nothing of newspaper work, but who knew
   precisely what the public wanted in a newspaper, and
   possessed, with this instinct and intelligence, the
   determination and enterprise which constitute the character of
   a successful man of business.
{2601}
   He saw how a newspaper ought to be conducted, and he thought
   he saw how, by the development of a new idea in printing, he
   could produce the 'Times' a good deal cheaper than any of its
   contemporaries. The whole English language, according to Mr.
   Walter, consisted of about 90,000 words; but by separating the
   particles and omitting the obsolete words, technical terms,
   and common terminations, Mr. Walter believed it to be possible
   to reduce the stock in common use to about 50,000, and a large
   proportion of these words, with all the common terminations,
   he proposed to have cast separately, so that the compositor,
   with a slip of MS. before him to set in type, might pick up
   words or even phrases instead of picking up one by one every
   letter of every word in his copy, and thus, of course, save a
   good deal of time. The idea was impracticable, utterly
   impracticable, because the number of words required to carry
   out the system must in itself be so great that no case of type
   that a printer could stand before would hold them all, even if
   the printer 'learn his boxes' with a case of some 4,000 or
   5,000 compartments before him; but it took a good many years,
   a good many experiments, and the expenditure of some thousands
   of pounds to convince Mr. Walter that the failure was not due
   to the perversity of his printers but to the practical
   difficulties which surrounded his conception. John Walter was
   far more successful in the general conduct of the 'Times' as a
   newspaper than he was in the management of the 'Times'
   printing office. He set all the printers in London by the ears
   with his whim about logographic printing. But he had a very
   clear conception of what a national newspaper ought to be, and
   with the assistance of a miscellaneous group of men, who, as
   they are sketched for us by Henry Crabb Robinson, were
   apparently far more picturesque than practical, John Walter
   made the 'Times' what the 'Times' has been for nearly a
   century, pre-eminently and distinctly a national newspaper.
   The 'Times,' in its original shape, consisted merely of the
   day's news, a few advertisements, some market quotations,
   perhaps a notice of a new book, a few scraps of gossip, and in
   the session, a Parliamentary report. The 'Morning Chronicle'
   had the credit … of inventing the leading article, as it had
   the credit of inventing Parliamentary reporting. The 'Morning
   Chronicle,' on the 12th of May, 1791, published a paragraph,
   announcing that 'the great and firm body of the Whigs of
   England, true to their principles, had decided on the dispute
   between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in favor of Mr. Fox, as the
   representative of the pure doctrines of Whiggery,' and that in
   consequence of this resolution Mr. Burke would retire from
   Parliament. It was very short, but this paragraph is the
   nearest approximation that is to be found in the newspapers of
   that time to a leading article, and appearing as it did in the
   part of the 'Morning Chronicle' where a year or two afterwards
   the leading articles were printed, Mr. Wingrove Cooke cites it
   as the germ of the leaders which, when they became general,
   gave a distinctive colour and authority to newspapers as
   independent organs of opinion and criticism. The idea soon
   became popular; and in the 'Morning Post' and the 'Courier'
   the leading article, developed as it was by Coleridge and
   Macintosh into a work of art, often rivalling in argument,
   wit, and eloquence the best speeches in Parliament, became the
   object of quite as much interest as the Parliamentary reports
   themselves. The 'Times,' knowing how to appropriate one by one
   all the specialties of its contemporaries, and to improve upon
   what it appropriated, was one of the first newspapers to adopt
   the idea of leading articles, and in adopting that idea, to
   improve upon it by stamping its articles with a spirit of
   frankness and independence which was all its own. … The reign
   of John Walter, practically the founder of the 'Times,' ended
   in the year 1812, and upon his death his son, the second John
   Walter, took possession of Printing House Square, and, acting
   in the spirit of his father, with ampler means, soon made the
   'Times' the power in the State that it has been from that day
   to this."

      _C. Pebody,
      English Journalism,
      pages 92-99._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
   The trials of William Hone.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1830-1833.
   The first Penny Papers in the United States.

   "The Penny Press of America dates from 1833. There were small
   and cheap papers published in Boston and Philadelphia before
   and about that time. The Bostonian was one. The Cent, in
   Philadelphia, was another. The latter was issued by
   Christopher C. Cornwall in 1830. These and all similar
   adventures were not permanent. Most of them were issued by
   printers when they had nothing else to do. Still they belonged
   to the class of cheap papers. The idea came from the
   illustrated Penny Magazine, issued in London in 1830. … The
   Morning Post was the first penny paper of any pretensions in
   the United States. It was started on New-Year's Day, 1833, as
   a two-cent paper, by Dr. Horatio David Shepard, with Horace
   Greeley and Francis V. Story as partners, printers, and
   publishers. … After one week's trial, with the exhaustion of
   the capital, the original idea of Dr. Shepard, his dream of
   the previous year 1832 was attempted, and the price reduced to
   one cent; but it was too late. … This experiment, however, was
   the seed of the Cheap Press. It had taken root. On Tuesday,
   the 3d of September, in the same year 1833, the first number
   of the Sun was issued by Benjamin H. Day."

      _F. Hudson,
      Journalism in the United States,
      pages 416-417._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1853-1870.
   Extinction of taxes on Newspapers in England.
   The beginning of Penny Papers.
   Rise of the provincial daily press.

   "In 1853 the advertisement duty was repealed; in 1855 the
   obligatory newspaper stamp was abolished, and in 1861, with
   the repeal of the paper duty, the last check upon the
   unrestrained journalism was taken away. As a matter of course,
   the resulting increase in the number of newspapers has been
   very great as well as the resulting diminution in their price.
   … When it was seen that the trammels of journalism were about
   to be loosed the penny paper came into existence. The 'Daily
   Telegraph,' the first newspaper published at that price, was
   established in June, 1855, and is now one of the most
   successful of English journals."

      _T. G. Bowles,
      Newspapers (Fortnightly Review,
      July 1, 1884)._

{2602}

   "With the entire freedom from taxation began the modern era of
   the daily press. At this time [1861] London had nine or ten
   daily newspapers, with the 'Times' in the lead. Of these, six
   or seven still survive, and are holding their own with
   competitors of more recent origin. Up to the time of the
   abolition of the stamp duties, London was the only city which
   had a daily press; but between 1855 and 1870 a large number of
   newspapers published in the provincial cities, which had
   hitherto been issued in weekly or bi-weekly form, made their
   appearance as daily journals. With only one or two exceptions,
   all the prosperous provincial morning papers of to-day were
   originally weeklies, and as such had long occupied the ground
   they now hold as dailies."

      _E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      chapter 13._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1874-1894.
   Surviving Press Censorship in Germany.

   "It would be wrong to speak of the Newspaper Press of Germany
   as the fourth estate. In the land which gave Gutenberg and the
   art of printing to the world, the Press has not yet
   established a claim to a title so imposing. To the growth and
   power of a Free Press are needed liberal laws and
   institutions, with freedom of political opinion and civil
   action for the subject. Hitherto these fundamental conditions
   have been absent. During the last fifty years little has been
   done to liberate the newspaper, to give it free play, to
   unmuzzle it. It is the misfortune of the German Press that the
   special laws for the regulation of newspapers and serial
   publications have been evolved from a system of legislation
   which was devised in times of great political unrest and
   agitation. … Liberty of the Press has been one of the leading
   political watchwords of the reform party during the last
   three-quarters of a century. Yet though the Press does not
   stand where it stood at the beginning of the century, when
   even visiting cards could not be printed without the solemn
   assent of the public censor, and when objectionable prints
   were summarily suppressed at the mere beck of a Minister or
   his subordinate, little ground has been won since the severer
   features of the measures passed in 1854 for the repression of
   democratic excesses were abandoned. The constitution of
   Prussia says that 'Every Prussian has the right to express his
   opinion freely by word, writing, print, or pictorial
   representation' (Article 27). But this right is superseded by
   the provision of the imperial constitution (Article 41,
   Section 16) which reserves to the Empire the regulation of the
   Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this
   provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany
   to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,
   the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the
   formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still
   exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is
   greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the
   statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still
   is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number
   before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of
   a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police
   authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal
   censor revises, and in the event of any article being
   obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole
   issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very
   speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial
   authorities have wide discretion in the determination of
   editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to
   be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of
   the police were far more extensive than now, and that they
   were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of
   newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between
   the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,
   Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though
   the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past
   does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the
   authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of
   newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the
   street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published
   without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent
   are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled
   to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or
   'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in
   prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that
   may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical
   faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of
   newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew
   hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a
   Jewish institution."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      Germany and the Germans,
      part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
   American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.

   The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of
   important newspapers and other periodicals, still published
   (1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for
   a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before
   1870. The * before a title indicates that the information
   given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some
   of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have
   been taken from their own files. In other cases, where
   publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,
   the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper
   Directory:

   1764.
   * Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;
   added Courant, d., 1836.

   * Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
   as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
   now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
   Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).

   1766 or 1767.
   * Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
   (New Haven); various names;
   now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.

   1768.
   * Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
   revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
   became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.

   1770.
   Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.

   1771.
   * Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
   (Philadelphia), weekly;
   became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
   daily, 1784;
   consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
   consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
   see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
   as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
   became North American, 1876.

{2603}

   1773.
   * Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
   merged in Baltimore American, 1799.

   1778.
   * Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
   since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.

   1785.
   *Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
   Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
   Gazette of Maine, 1790;
   Eastern Herald, 1792;
   Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
   Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
   Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
   Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
   * Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
   place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
   consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
   Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
   became Eagle after a few years.

   1786.
   Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
   Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.

   1789.
   * Gazette of the United States (New York);
   removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
   became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
   merged in North American, 1847.
   Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.

   1793.
   Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
   Commercial Gazette, 1841.
   Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
   became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
   Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
   Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1794.
   Rutland (Vermont) Herald.

   1796.
   * Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
   added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.

   1800.
   * Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.

   1801.
   New York Evening Post.
   Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
   added Evening Gazette, 1843.

   1803.
   Charleston News and Courier.
   Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.

   1804.
   Pittsburgh Post.

   1805.
   Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
   * Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.

   1806.
   * Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
   became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.

   1807.
   * New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
   added daily, 1831.

   1808.
   * Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
   became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
   Le Canadien (Montreal).
   St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.

   1809.
   * New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
   consolidated with People (founded 1868)
   as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
   Montreal Herald.

   1810.
   Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.

   1811.
   * Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
   became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
   became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
   added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
   * Western Intelligencer;
   Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
   became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.

   1812.
   * Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
   added Evening Register, daily, 1848.

   1813.
   Albany Argus.
   Boston Advertiser.
   Acadian Recorder (Halifax).

   1815.
   North American Review (New York), monthly.

   1816.
   * Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
   Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
   Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.

   1817.
   * Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.

   1819.
   * Cleveland Herald;
   consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
   See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
   Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
   * Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.

   1820.
   Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
   added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
   added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
   * Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
   (Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.

   1821.
   * Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
   Indianapolis Sentinel.
   Mobile Register.

   1822.
   Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
   added Republican, daily, 1849.
   * Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
   has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.

   1823.
   Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
   added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
   Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
   * New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
   consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
   as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
   Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
   * Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
   became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
   and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
   became weekly and daily, 1850.
   * Observer (New York), weekly.
   * Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
   Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
   added News-Press, daily, 1852.

   1824.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
   added daily, 1844.

   1825.
   Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
   became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
   added daily, 1881.

   1826.
   Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
   * Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
   weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
   * La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
   Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
   Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
   removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
   and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
   purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
   both papers continue.
   Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
   Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.

{2604}

   1827.
   * Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
   * Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
   became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
   Columbus (Ohio) Press.
   New York Journal of Commerce.

   1828.
   * Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
   Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
   Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
   * Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
   consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
   weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
   (see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
   added daily, 1860.

   1829.
   * Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
   added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
   * Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
   semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
   became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
   consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
   Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
   consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
   as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
   * Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
   Philadelphia Inquirer.
   * Providence Daily Journal.
   * Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.

   1830.
   * Albany Evening Journal.
   * Boston Transcript.
   Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
   (founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
   under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
   * Evangelist (New York), weekly.
   * Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
   merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.

   1831.
   Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
   * Boston Daily Post.
   Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
   Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
   added daily, 1848.

   1832.
   * Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
   consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
   as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
   became Journal and Courier, 1849.
   Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).

   1833.
   * Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
   successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
   * Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
   * The Sun (New York).

   1834.
   Bangor Whig and Courier.
   * Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
   * New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
   Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).

   1835.
   * New York Herald.
   Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
   Troy Morning Telegram.

   1836.
   * Miner's Express, weekly;
   merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
   * Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
   * Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
   absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
   removed to Springfield, 1839;
   absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
   * Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.

   1837.
   * Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
   Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
   Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
   * Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
   daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
   daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
   Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
   Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
   * Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
   absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
   dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
   * New Orleans Picayune.

   1838.
   Bangor Commercial.
   * Philadelphia Demokrat.
   * St. Louis Evening Gazette;
   became Evening Mirror, 1847;
   became New Era, 1848;
   became Intelligencer, 1849;
   became Evening News, 1857;
   consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
   consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.

   1839.
   * Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
   became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
   has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
   now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
   * Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Madison Express, weekly;
   became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
   consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
   daily and weekly, 1852;
   became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
   Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
   * North American (Philadelphia);
   absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
   (see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
   Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
   became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
   absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.

   1840.
   Chicago Tribune.
   * Appeal Memphis);
   consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
   as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
   consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
   as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
   * Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
   became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
   succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
   about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
   then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
   and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
   here consolidated with Banner of Peace
   (founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
   removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
   * Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.

   1841.
   * Brooklyn Eagle.
   * Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
   * New York Tribune.
   * Pittsburgh Chronicle;
   consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
   Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
   Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.

{2605}

   1842.
   * Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
   became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
   became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
   * Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
   * Galveston News.
   Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
   * Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
   became United Presbyterian, 1854.

   1843.
   * Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
   consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
   Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
   * Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).

   1844.
   Chicago Evening Journal.
   * Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
   became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
   * American Baptist (New York);
   became Baptist Weekly;
   has absorbed Gospel Age;
   became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
   * Churchman (New York), weekly.
   *New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
   consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
   Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
   Ledger (New York), weekly.
   Oswego Times.
   * Globe (Toronto).

   1845.
   * Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   * Buffalo Morning Express.
   * Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
   Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Scientific American (New York), weekly.
   * St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.

   1846.
   * Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
   * Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
   successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
   became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
   became Evening Times, 1858.
   * Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
   Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
   * Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
   * Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
   Pittsburgh Dispatch.

   1847.
   * Albany Morning Express.
   New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
   quarterly.
   Boston Traveller.
   Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
   * Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
   added Evening Journal, 1861.
   London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
   * Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
   Iron Age (New York), weekly.
   Toledo Commercial.
   Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
   as Morning Herald and Gazette.

   1848.
   * Massachusetts Teacher;
   afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
   Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
   and Connecticut School Journal,
   formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
   * Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
   * Cleveland Leader, daily;
   added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
   purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
   with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
   Des Moines Leader.
   * Independent (New York), weekly.

   1849.
   * Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
   absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
   * Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
   See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
   * Irish American (New York), weekly.
   * Water Cure Journal (New York);
   became Herald of Health, 1863;
   became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
   * St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
   consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
   as Pioneer Press, 1875.
   Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.

   1850.
   * Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
   Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
   Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
   * Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Richmond Dispatch.
   * Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
   added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
   * Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
   absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
   and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
   * Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
   added Daily Times, 1860.

   1851.
   La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
   * Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
   added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
   * Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
   at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
   * New York Times, daily and weekly.
   * Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
   daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
   as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
   St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
   * Troy (New York) Times, daily.

   1852.
   Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
   St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
   Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).

   1853.
   Elmira Advertiser.
   Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
   Richmond Anzeiger.
   San Francisco Evening Post.
   Toledo Express.
   Washington Evening Star.
   * Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
   added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.

   1854.
   * Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
   semi-weekly and weekly;
   suspended during four years of Civil War.
   Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
   * American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
   * Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
   La Crosse Republican and Leader.
   Herold (Milwaukee).
   * Nebraska City News.
   * Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
   became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.

{2606}

   1855.
   * Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
   purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.

   1856.
   * Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
   consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
   as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
   * Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
   succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
   then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
   * Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
   Dubuque Times.
   * Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
   became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
   San Francisco Call.
   * Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.

   1857.
   Baltimore News.
   Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
   * Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
   Leavenworth Times.
   New Haven Union.
   Harper's Weekly (New York).
   * Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
   * Scottish American (New York), weekly.
   Philadelphia Press.
   Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
   Westliche Post (St. Louis).
   Syracuse Courier.

   1858.
   Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
   Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
   Rochester Post-Express.

   1859.
   * Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
   * Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
   Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
   * Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
   succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
   absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
   absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.

   1860.
   World (New York).

   1861.
   Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.

   1862.
   * New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
   * Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
   Portland Press, daily.
   Raleigh News and Observer.
   St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.

   1863.
   * Brooklyn Daily Union;
   consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
   as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
   London (Ontario) Advertiser.
   * New Orleans Times;
   consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
   as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
   Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
   Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
   Providence Evening Bulletin.
   * Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
   * Wheeling Register.

   1864.
   * Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
   issued in connection with Independent Statesman
   (see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
   Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
   * Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.

   1865.
   Albany Evening Post.
   * Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
   Halifax Morning Chronicle.
   Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
   Memphis Public Ledger.

   * Catholic World (New York City), monthly.

   * Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
   absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
   Nation (New York), weekly
   Norfolk Virginian.
   * Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
   Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
   * Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
   consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
   founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
   Philadelphia Abend Post.
   San Antonio Express.
   * San Francisco Chronicle.
   * Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.

   1866.
   * Denver Tribune;
   consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
   under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
   became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
   * Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
   became Christian Work, 1894;
   has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
   Every Thursday, and others.
   Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
   Sanitarian (New York), monthly.

   1867.
   * Advance (Chicago), weekly.
   * Evening Journal (Jersey City).
   * Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
   Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
   * Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
   Minneapolis Tribune.
   * Le Monde (Montreal).
   Engineering News (New York), weekly.
   Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
   American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
   * L'Evenement (Quebec).
   * Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
   consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
   under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
   Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
   Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
   * Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).

   1868.
   Atlanta Constitution.
   * Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
   * People (Concord, New Hampshire).
   See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
   Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
   St. Paul Dispatch.
   * San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
   Troy Press.

   1869.
   * Evening Star (Montreal);
   became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
   added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
   * Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
   Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
   * Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
   Scranton Times, daily and weekly.

{2607}

PRIOR.
PRIORY.

   See MONASTERY.

PRIORIES, Alien.

   "These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates
   which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 4._

PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.

PRISAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777
      PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
   Confederate.
   Libby.
   Belle Isle.
   Andersonville.

   "The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place
   of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood
   to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,
   three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,
   Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a
   tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet
   broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of
   all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,
   were confined for many months, and this was all
   the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,
   sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that
   could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his
   length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room
   necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At
   one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or
   stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but
   those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,
   as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the
   middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was
   removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for
   themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had
   received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in
   spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their
   blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had
   not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in
   different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the
   Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from
   the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did
   not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,
   but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,
   the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the
   prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within
   three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in
   all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,
   or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be
   instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's
   musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner
   fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large
   prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was
   crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'
   quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the
   size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was
   made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a
   little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef
   weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of
   suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however
   disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but
   for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard
   whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this
   most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now
   proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,
   opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the
   Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are
   confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a
   shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.
   Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to
   six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three
   feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has
   something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley
   tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,
   rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any
   rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who
   were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied
   at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been
   imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the
   enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they
   could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.
   Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was
   plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was
   built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were
   conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in
   everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A
   chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,
   full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,
   containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces
   of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and
   a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten
   beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the
   surface. None of these were given together, and the whole
   ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the
   support of a healthy man."

      _V. Mott, and others,
      Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of
      Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in
      the hands of the Rebel Authorities,
      chapters 2-3._

   The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
   W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
   Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
   portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
   the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
   miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
   1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
   selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
   'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
   definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
   thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
   Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
   proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
   grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
   characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
   'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
   here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
   can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
   space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
   of any kind were built.
{2608}
   The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
   John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
   became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
   as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
   infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
   stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
   from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
   about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
   month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
   its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
   From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
   Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
   following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
   about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
   which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
   from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
   its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
   accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
   three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
   so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
   the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
   somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
   remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
   additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
   Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
   Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
   the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
   Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
   table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
   the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
   result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
   22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
   circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
   compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
   washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
   'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
   excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
   to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
   stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
   filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
   Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
   Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
   visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
   sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
   themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
   attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
   jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
   military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
   presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
   November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
   earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
   been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.

      _A. Spencer,
      Narrative of Andersonville,
      chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15._

   "There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel
   prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th
   Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured
   by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half
   confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.
   The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000
   Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and
   30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern
   prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."

      _J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 16._

      _Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners
      (H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session)._

      _Trial of Henry Wirz._

      _Southern Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McElroy,
      Andersonville.

      _F. F. Cavada,
      Libby Life_.

      _A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
      Prisoners of War and Military Prisons._

PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.

      See LANDFRIEDE.

PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.

   "The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result
   was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great
   Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,
   including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail
   are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.
   To this number may be added 200 more, which were either
   destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;
   making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured
   by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and
   letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving
   this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these
   2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government
   ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part
   of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,
   to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed
   vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact
   number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;
   but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge
   they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be
   recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the
   first six months of the war. After that period, we had very
   few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."

      _G. Coggeshall,
      History of American Privateers, 1812-14,
      pages 394-395._

PRIVATEERS.
LETTERS OF MARQUE.

   "Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of
   using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private
   owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such
   commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]
   empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all
   forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages
   of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,
   the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the
   world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the
   Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that
   'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised
   states have since become signataries of the Declaration,
   except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future
   privateers can only be employed by signataries of the
   Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned
   states."

      _W. E. Hall,
      Treatise on International Law,
      part 3, chapter 7, section 180._

{2609}

   "There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of
   marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the
   sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,
   uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In
   popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned
   for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called
   letters of marque."

      _F. H. Upton,
      The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,
      page 186._

      See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.

PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.

   "It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council
   first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also
   during the minority of this King that a select Council was
   gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy
   Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our
   modern Cabinet.

      See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

   From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.
   the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,
   and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary
   proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to
   deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,
   however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.
   Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled
   into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its
   original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are
   now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of
   its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of
   taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It
   still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction
   in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it
   has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the
   colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly
   appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the
   Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a
   constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal
   and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can
   only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,
   all the higher and more formal acts of administration must
   proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and
   their performance be directed by orders issued by the
   Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened
   for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those
   political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the
   advice of particular ministers, or those which must be
   exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on
   usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The
   ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by
   committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from
   the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these
   committees are designated as those of the Lords of the
   Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by
   the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)
   constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all
   offences against the Government, and of such other
   extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the
   matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is
   referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This
   committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord
   Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time
   to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction
   in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme
   court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the
   Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical
   cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities
   throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation
   of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also
   appointed to provide 'for the general management and
   superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee
   is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …
   Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but
   they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four
   weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal
   residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy
   Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to
   constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this
   number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy
   Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy
   Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole
   Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are
   appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the
   discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …
   Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings
   of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased
   to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the
   members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
   York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the
   Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,
   the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the
   Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the
   Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,
   the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of
   Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers
   Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the
   Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of
   Council for Education, certain other officials I need not
   particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the
   Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of
   State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have
   this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is
   sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,
   who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an
   honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right
   Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,
   and younger sons of viscounts and barons."

      _A. C. Ewald,
      The Crown and its Advisers,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Privy Council._

{2610}

PROBULI, The.

   A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens
   during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the
   great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a
   conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of
   the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who
   should examine all proposals and motions, after which only
   such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and
   approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,
   at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the
   necessary measures."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.

PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.

PROBUS, Wall of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.

   See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.

   "If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,
   he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his
   successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with
   him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,
   had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of
   difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically
   suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed
   the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be
   continued in his command for several successive years, with
   the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these
   officers being, within their own district, equal to the power
   of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was
   allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course
   continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all
   the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in
   Proconsular commands."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 35._

PROCURATOR.
PROCTOR.

      See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

PROHIBITIONISTS.

   A party in American politics which contends for the enactment
   of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
   liquors.

PROMANTY, The Right of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

PROPAGANDA, The College of the.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.

PROPHESYINGS.

   In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those
   English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,
   "the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement
   from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called
   prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and
   discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the
   presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who
   finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his
   own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,
   and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their
   faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify
   the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,
   and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among
   the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were
   suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Marsden,
      History of the Early Puritans,
      chapter 4. sections 7-25._

PROPHETS, The Hebrew.

   "The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The
   root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or
   bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a
   fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God
   has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited
   utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense
   of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of
   prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,
   in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,
   is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or
   impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just
   observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy
   translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical
   authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed
   into all modern European languages; namely, the word …
   Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'
   'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical
   use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'
   in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and
   the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'
   i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the
   seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,
   for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'
   In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the
   word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to
   appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter
   of the Divine will.'"

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 19 (volume 1)._

PROPHETS, Schools of the.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.

PROPONTIS, The.

   The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus
   (Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called
   the Sea of Marmora.

PROPRÆTOR, Roman.

      See PROCONSUL.

PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.

      See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION.

PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.

PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

   ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   France.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and
      FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
      1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,
      to 1552-1561;

      also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Ireland: its failure.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Piedmont.

      See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
      and 1561-1568.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Sweden and Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.

PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
   Switzerland.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

   ----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------

PROTOSEVASTOS.

      See SEVASTOS.

{2611}

PROVENCE:
   Roman origin.

   "The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be
   considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the
   province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia
   Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of
   Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes
   Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country
   between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in
   the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.
   Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west
   side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the
   Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the
   Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently
   extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it
   will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it
   even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part
   of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the
   rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is
   Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have
   left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great
   works."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

   The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval
   times.

PROVENCE:
   Cession to the Visigoths.

   "The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the
   earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,
   that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that
   the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when
   Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of
   the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the
   Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to
   Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still
   loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause
   of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he
   had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the
   Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the
   Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in
   Gaul."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

      See, also,
      ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.
   Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

PROVENCE: A. D. 536.
   Cession to the Franks.

   Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it
   was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king
   of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven
   years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the
   subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his
   successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the
   Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic
   possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),
      and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4)._

PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.
   The Kingdom.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.
   The Kings become Counts.
   The Spanish connection.

   "Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of
   several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870
   to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was
   crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who
   reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the
   Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of
   this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that
   of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was
   preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of
   which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became
   extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two
   daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of
   these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the
   other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of
   Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of
   Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,
   gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of
   the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his
   successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty
   and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all
   the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble
   sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,
   at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an
   electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,
   illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 3 (volume l)._

      See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
   Before the Albigensian Crusade.

   "At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king
   of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part
   of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of
   Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

   To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of
   Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His
   supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of
   Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,
   and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,
   surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with
   difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive
   territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the
   larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of
   Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,
   and flexible language which was then vernacular there.

      See LANGUE D'OC.

   They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
   to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
   different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
   descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
   invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
   mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
   the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
   than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
   refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
   Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
   the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
   alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
   virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
   however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
   the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
   princely and luxurious court.
{2612}
   A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
   rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
   and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
   gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
   life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
   feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
   enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
   imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
   knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
   justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
   sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
   amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
   die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
   Fauriel to revive them."

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

   "In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and
   a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme
   laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole
   object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in
   society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which
   their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted
   with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;
   nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,
   in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They
   even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for
   thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed
   their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They
   instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were
   gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in
   short, to the whole south of France the character of a
   carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of
   reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to
   those good old times."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Fauriel,
      History of Provençal Poetry._

      See, also, TROUBADOURS.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.
   The Albigensian Crusades.

      See ALBIGENSES.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.
   The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.
   Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
   Invasion by Charles V.
   Defensive wasting of the country.
   Massacre of Waldenses.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

PROVENCE: 16th Century.
   Strength of Protestantism.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

   ----------PROVENCE: End--------

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
   The Plantation and the City.

      See RHODE ISLAND.

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

PROVISORS, Statute of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PROXENI.

   In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was
   fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their
   diplomatic communication with foreign States."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1, section 9._

PRUSA: A. D. 1326.
   The first capital of the Ottomans.

      See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

   ----------PRUSSIA: Start--------

PRUSSIA:
   The original country and its name.

   "Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,
   lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen
   (Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours
   at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …
   Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping
   insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian
   Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the
   seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,
   on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of
   the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.
   'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,
   B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain
   inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it
   'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,
   which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who
   knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,
   Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a
   Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or
   Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of
   Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.
   Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,
   iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be
   interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous
   otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had
   been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their
   knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to
   knowing anything of it was great."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 2._

PRUSSIA: 13th Century.
   Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.

   The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
   heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
   fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
   tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
   early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
   succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
   The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
   progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
   putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
   now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
   Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
   already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
   people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
   achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
   famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
   of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
   European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
   succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
   Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
   unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
   expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
   After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
   Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
   they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
   fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
   wretched inhabitants.
{2613}
   Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
   the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
   under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
   Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
   colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
   bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
   exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
   immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
   D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
   three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
   was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
   bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."

      _G. F. Maclear,
      Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
      chapter 16._

   "None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour
   with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and
   wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve
   favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had
   vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some
   fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism
   brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well
   down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet
   lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly
   Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker
   terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and
   conversion and composure could ensue."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Frederick the Great,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume l)._

      See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
   Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
   Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
   Erection into a duchy.
   Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;
      and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
   Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
   in his war with Poland.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
   Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
   the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
   His curbing of the nobles.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
   The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.

   In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge
   of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was
   making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain
   had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of
   Louis XIV. of France.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

   "He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
   Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
   German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
   Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
   Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
   November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
   of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
   King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
   Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
   at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
   Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
   proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 5._

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
   Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
   Orange relinquished.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.
   Abolition of serfdom.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.
   Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.
   Reign of Frederick William I., and after.

   The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
   Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
   included in that of GERMANY.

   ----------PRUSSIA: End--------

PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.

   "The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of
   languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,
   remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.
   This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the
   East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error
   arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would
   call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and
   'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and
   'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is
   fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the
   amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."

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

PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).

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

PRYDYN.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

PRYTANES.
PRYTANEUM.

   The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at
   Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the
   venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout
   the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each
   section during its term assembled daily in their session
   house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to
   receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and
   instantly to take such measures as the public interest
   rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to
   the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people
   was little more than the organ of the council, as it could
   only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 11._

   "Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now
   elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each
   of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the
   senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under
   the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or
   36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a
   Prytany."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,
      page 14._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

PRYTANIS.

   A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of
   Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even
   Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar
   as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,
   a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was
   annually appointed as supreme magistrate

      See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

   … The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
   Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
   of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 5._

{2614}

PSALTER OF CASHEL.
PSALTER OF TARA.

      See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.

PSEPHISM.

   A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.

PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

PTOLEMAIS, Syria.

      See ACRE.

PTOLEMIES, The.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;
      and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

PTOLEMY'S CANON.

   An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
   Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
   Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
   astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.

      _W. Hales,
      New Analysis of Chronology,
      volume I, book 1._

PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

PUBLIC MEALS.

      See SYSSITIA.

PUBLIC PEACE, The.

      See LANDFRIEDE.

PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.

PUBLICANI.

   The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.

      See VECTIGAL.

PUBLICIANI, The.

      See ALBIGENSES;
      and PAULICIANS.

PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 340.

PUEBLOS.

   The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the
   inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as
   applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New
   Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of
   communal houses which they inhabit.

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The American Race,
      page 113._

   "The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos
   to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term
   pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of
   every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its
   special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."

      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 8._

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

PUELTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.
   Threatened by the Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).

PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
   Siege and capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

PULLANI, The.

   The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the
   East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been
   a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the
   Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from
   "fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states
   that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice
   against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from
   Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied
   indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

PULTNEY ESTATE, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).

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

PULTUSK,
   Battle of (1703).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

   Battle of (1806).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

PUMBADITHA, The. School of.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

PUNIC.

   The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the
   Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly
   signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician
   origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase
   "Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and
   treachery.

   ----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------

PUNIC WARS,
   The First.

   When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How
   fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and
   Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the
   deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged
   in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the
   beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her
   supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to
   covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,
   there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to
   cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest
   excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it
   was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned
   over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility
   of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or
   Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not
   come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of
   freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were
   mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the
   Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of
   Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had
   treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male
   inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down
   to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of
   Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,
   both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the
   outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines
   invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one
   party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of
   terms with the Carthaginians.
{2615}
   The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to
   the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to
   decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the
   question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army
   into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse
   on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was
   relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two
   aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians
   alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,
   and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his
   life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.
   Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid
   city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.
   405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the
   Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.
   In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.
   262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his
   army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth
   little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.
   Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have
   built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty
   triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained
   by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this
   improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder
   was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But
   where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans
   were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore
   a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by
   which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able
   to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at
   close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of
   victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the
   Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,
   and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to
   attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but
   without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of
   doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,
   in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the
   Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then
   followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,
   his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard
   terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis
   a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The
   miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at
   Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.
   255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage
   homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast
   of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war
   in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans
   took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having
   built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again
   by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and
   strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius
   Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and
   inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent
   Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to
   solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen
   against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel
   death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but
   modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans
   undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring
   port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the
   Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most
   protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,
   nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans
   only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms
   of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a
   bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman
   fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet
   destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247
   B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the
   great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet
   greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very
   near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few
   mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost
   unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established
   himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,
   near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the
   Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence
   of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the
   Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.
   The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased
   it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus
   Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the
   great island had been ruined beyond recovery.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapters 4-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 3._

      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book l._

      _A. J. Church,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 4, chapters 1-3._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.

PUNIC WARS:
   The Second.

   Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an
   interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been
   brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the
   Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of
   Hamilcar Barca.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

   Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained
   power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do
   no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his
   own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians
   had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with
   Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the
   country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by
   pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,
   rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly
   all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold
   and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed
   at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of
   his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at
   organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar
   was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,
   Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.
   Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,
   was chosen to the command in Spain.
{2616}
   He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for
   making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a
   challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his
   father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The
   provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a
   Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed
   an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of
   eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed
   themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was
   with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be
   the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.
   He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer
   of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The
   story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.
   The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the
   losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy
   with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the
   one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He
   received some reinforcement and co-operation from the
   Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent
   wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the
   first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the
   Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on
   the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,
   they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign
   of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed
   the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a
   march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,
   which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and
   was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and
   15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of
   the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome
   then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without
   doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging
   of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the
   isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a
   great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and
   animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops
   northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across
   the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during
   the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along
   the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a
   Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of
   campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,
   without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him
   the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people
   were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they
   elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been
   one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to
   his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle
   with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his
   countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.
   Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,
   including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the
   state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have
   sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from
   the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and
   yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in
   Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with
   proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."
   Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the
   headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy
   declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and
   passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He
   received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother
   in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same
   year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a
   fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the
   Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects
   continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an
   important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of
   Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of
   the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a
   time more important than that in Italy, and the consul
   Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent
   to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and
   the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges
   which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for
   two years, and chiefly by the science and the military
   inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the
   Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage
   and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the
   thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,
   Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still
   held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength
   in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and
   Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion
   by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was
   left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)
   and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new
   population. For three or four years after this the war in
   Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,
   but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,
   Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and
   slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and
   greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the
   field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.
   Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his
   victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in
   some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the
   Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a
   movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and
   brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his
   dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and
   revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.
   Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of
   Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished
   together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the
   Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with
   them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and
   no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio
   returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete
   conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding
   that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate
   stood half opposed.
{2617}
   He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing
   from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying
   siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during
   the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and
   burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian
   allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success
   was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie
   70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian
   king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom
   delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,
   thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the
   Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned
   Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and
   returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy
   he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save
   Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended
   in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called
   the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance
   westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed
   utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to
   accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their
   trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and
   their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from
   them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,
   Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 43-47._

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 31-34._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapters 11-39._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.

PUNIC WARS:
   The Third.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
      and ROME: B. C. 151-146.

   ----------PUNIC WARS: End--------

PUNJAB,
PUNJAUB,
PANJAB, The.

   "Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only
   another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic
   Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring
   down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,
   and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into
   one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian
   Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of
   the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by
   which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon
   the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the
   Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how
   many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of
   Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass
   into India, and overspread the country, until the people could
   rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a
   European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,
   his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,
   and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in
   winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its
   boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which
   know no change, have made it the dream of every great
   conqueror."

      _J. F. Hurst,
      Indika,
      chapter 75._

   "In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on
   the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due
   south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting
   them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the
   Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej
   constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …
   The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are
   called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus
   delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the
   Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier
   and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the
   Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the
   frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj
   states."

      _E. Arnold,
      The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
   18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
   Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
   English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
   British India took place in 1849.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,
      and SIKHS

PUNT, Land of.

   "Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient
   Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full
   of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,
   in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich
   also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,
   dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir
   of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the
   Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the
   sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt
   was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had
   travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,
   Hathor."

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 8._

PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

   ----------PURITANS: Start--------

PURITANS:
   The movement taking form.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.

PURITANS:
   First application of the Name.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).

PURITANS:
   In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.

   "When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
   Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
   or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
   and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
   called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
   adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
   control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
   the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
   cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
   vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
   communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
   still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
   attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
   of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
   favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
   form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
{2618}
   During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
   and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
   Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
   name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
   Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
   National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
   Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
   The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
   colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
   called by that name, either by themselves or their
   contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
   Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
   Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
   maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
   office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
   to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
   who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
   to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
   was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."

      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      chapters 2 and 1._

   "The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'
   and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in
   point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,
   pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the
   inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists
   all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to
   all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a
   greater conformity of church government and worship to
   primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term
   became restricted in its application to those who retained
   their respect for the church of England, and their connection
   with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in
   distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both
   their respect for that church and their connection with it,
   under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could
   never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all
   Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.
   They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the
   Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed
   with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic
   in their faith."

      _G. Punchard,
      History of Congregationalism,
      volume 3, appendix, note F._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      chapter 3._

      See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.

      _D. Campbell,
      The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
      chapter 16 (volume 2)._

PURITANS: A. D. 1604.
   Hampton Court Conference with James I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
   Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.
   The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.

PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.

PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.
   At the beginning of the English Civil War.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

   ----------PURITANS: End--------

PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

PURUMANCIANS, The.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

PUTEOLI.

   The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the
   modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became
   under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in
   Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one
   of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa
   residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his
   journey to Rome.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 11._

PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

PYLÆ CASPIÆ.

      See CASPIAN GATES.

PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See

      CILICIAN GATES.

PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

PYRAMID.

   "The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote
   the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to
   this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted
   the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure
   in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other
   hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the
   pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of
   the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."

      _H. Brugsch
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 7._

PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.

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

PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

PYRENEES, Treaty of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

PYRRHIC DANCE.

   A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much
   delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to
   children only five years old. It was thought to have been
   invented by the Cretans.

      _G. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1-2._

PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

PYTHIAN GAMES.

      See DELPHI.

PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.

   According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,
   Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of
   Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until
   slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the
   principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most
   famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The
   temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,
   from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called
   the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and
   uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was
   the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.
   Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known
   by the name of Delphi.

      See DELPHI.

{2619}

   ----------QUADI, The: Start--------

QUADI, The:
   Early place and history.

      See MARCOMANNI.

QUADI, The:
   Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.

      See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.
   War of Constantius.

      See LIMIGANTES.

QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.
   War of Valentinian.

   A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a
   worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the
   Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with
   little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the
   neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the
   Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the
   country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with
   unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned
   across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his
   purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending
   Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray
   for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their
   presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was
   ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.

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

QUADI, The:
   Probable Modern Representatives of.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

   ----------QUADI, The: End--------

QUADRILATERAL, The.

   A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the
   strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,
   bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the
   requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover
   rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending
   army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:
   first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;
   secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by
   passages offered at fortified points which insure the command
   of the rivers."

      _Major C. Adams,
      Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,
      page 232._

QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).

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

QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.

      See CALPURNIAN LAW.

QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.

   In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of
   preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the
   language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the
   Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

QUÆSTORS, Roman.

   "Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first
   year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in
   241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to
   plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The
   quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was
   attached."

      _H. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      appendix A._

   "We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been
   intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of
   the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the
   decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,
   which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put
   under the control of new patrician officers, the military
   quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      pages 70-84._

QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

   ----------QUAKERS: Start--------

QUAKERS:
   Origin of the Society of Friends.
   George Fox and his early Disciples.

   "The religious movement which began with the wandering
   preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as
   they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was
   born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:
   and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time
   of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at
   last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he
   knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little
   out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where
   his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a
   child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,
   sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,
   he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so
   utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,
   that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"
   there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at
   what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's
   lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness
   and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of
   something better and nobler than the common religion, which
   seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to
   place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire
   —seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as
   very religious, and likely to help him through his
   difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he
   began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all
   these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that
   people were setting up and making so much ado about as
   'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly
   education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man
   any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls
   of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own
   thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose
   within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and
   priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he
   did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,
   and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and
   walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time
   like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three
   years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great
   life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and
   peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which
   said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy
   condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap
   for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be
   clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of
   spirit and life.
{2620}
   … It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he
   began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In
   those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking
   with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had
   made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many
   years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen
   under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness
   either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,
   that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no
   danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A
   tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere
   he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It
   seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He
   went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the
   magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and
   lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and
   also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified
   against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep
   to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as
   everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should
   give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'
   and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God
   should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely
   the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central
   thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.
   That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;
   he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to
   face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to
   Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all
   priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little
   groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began
   to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a
   sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of
   Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him
   would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply
   called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but
   met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;
   believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if
   anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to
   say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands
   of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to
   swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he
   suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two
   years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which
   time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he
   refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time
   into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they
   kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he
   was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was
   again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.
   After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken
   before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with
   him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but
   with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings
   began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no
   persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of
   where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they
   assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the
   place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their
   quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The
   magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a
   band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in
   the street in front, held their meetings there; went on
   exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken
   off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful
   that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to
   truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox
   had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends
   numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more
   widely still, and its founder had visited America, and
   travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine
   of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox
   himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people
   past all the days of persecution."

      _B. Herford,
      The Story of Religion in England,
      chapter 27._

   "At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it
   was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine
   himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system
   which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by
   man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some
   of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their
   neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for
   that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,
   and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …
   Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in
   the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by
   a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most
   distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose
   father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend
   of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval
   affairs."

      _Sir J. Mackintosh,
      History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
      chapter 6._

   "At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one
   of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former
   bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon
   Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited
   the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became
   the common appellation bestowed on Friends."

      _C. Evans,
      Friends in the 17th Century,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Gough,
      History of the People called Quakers._

      _W. R. Wagstaff,
      History of the Society of Friends._

      _T. Clarkson,
      Portraiture of Quakerism._

      _American Church History,
      volume 12._

QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.
   The persecution in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.
   Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.
   Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.

QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
   Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.

   ----------QUAKERS: End--------

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
   In England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
   In Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.

{2621}

QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

QUAPAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

   ----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.
   Its Indian occupants.
   Its name.

   "When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he
   found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of
   the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had
   perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the
   migration of the principal tribe and the succession of
   others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French
   settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise
   of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the
   river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the
   word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on
   the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with
   Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from
   which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a
   derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that
   the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal
   belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the
   7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is
   'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de
   Hamburg et de Quebec.'"

      _E. Warburton,
      The Conquest of Canada,
      volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note._

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.
   The founding of the city by Champlain.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.
   Capture by the English, brief occupation
   and restoration to France.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.
   The founding of the Ursuline Convent.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.
   Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips
   and the Massachusetts colonists.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
   Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.
   Wolfe's conquest.

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

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.
   Attempted recovery by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
   Death of Montgomery.

      See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

   ----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------

   ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.
   Creation of the English province.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.
   Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.

   On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in
   1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada
   received the name of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

   ----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------

QUEBEC ACT, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

QUEEN, Origin of the word.

      See King.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

   "Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of
   February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its
   celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,
   then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir
   Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House
   of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her
   Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising
   out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the
   poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed
   by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy
   Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had
   ceased.

      See ANNATES.

   The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal
   to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In
   the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent
   fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His
   Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's
   message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded
   to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of
   the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply
   it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and
   with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its
   application has been extended to the building of
   parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 4._

QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.

   The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history
   as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American
   history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

QUEENSLAND.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

QUELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUERANDIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

QUIBÉRON BAY,
   Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

   Defeat of French Royalists (1795).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

QUICHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.

QUICHUAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{2622}

QUIDS, The.

   John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican
   leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second
   administration of Washington and the administration of John
   Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable
   spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.
   He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at
   the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to
   England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists
   [1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not
   sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph
   faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the
   Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful
   opposition party."

      _A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 6, section 3._

QUIETISM.

      See MYSTICISM.

QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

QUINARIUS, The.

      See AS.

QUINCY RAILWAY, The.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

QUINDECEMVIRS, The.

   The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline
   books.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 31._

QUINNIPIACK.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

QUIPU.
WAMPUM.

   "The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by
   means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the
   finger, of any required length, to which were attached
   numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and
   textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each
   of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a
   quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most
   fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with
   the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was
   sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve
   as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus
   relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed
   in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a
   third for history, and so forth. On what principle of
   mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and
   colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted
   whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.
   Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a
   certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed
   essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,
   or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and
   Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The
   wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in
   many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was
   composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different
   colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts
   and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the
   strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter
   shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant
   tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The
   substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the
   custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,
   introduced by European influence."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Myths of the New World,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, WAMPUM.

QUIRINAL, The.

   "The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times
   existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian
   walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a
   second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost
   by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from
   their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name
   of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the
   'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied
   to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all
   associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although
   not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the
   former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict
   use of the language received any other name than 'hill'
   ('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was
   still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the
   Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate
   communities confronting each other and doubtless in many
   respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts
   early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal
   may with certainty be inferred."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, PALATINE HILL,
      and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

QUIRITES.

   In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were
   so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them
   'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name
   Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses
   on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·
   Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,
   simply the full burgess."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 4 and 5._

   The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
   a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
   derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 5._

QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.

      See ECUADOR.

QUIVIRA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.

R

RAAB, Battle of.

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

RABBLING.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

RABELAIS, on Education.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.

RAB-SHAKEH.

   The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
   Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.

RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.

RADAGAISUS,
RADAGAIS,
RODOGAST;
   Invasion of Italy by.

   "In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
   multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
   Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
   nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
   that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
   had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
   Huns.
{2623}
   The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
   warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
   These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
   fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
   than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
   general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
   found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
   savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
   any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
   that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
   surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
   surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
   captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RÆTIA.

      See RHÆTIA.

RAGA,
RAGHA,
RHAGES.

   "The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was
   Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme
   eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The
   great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in
   the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.
   Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by
   the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and
   Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district
   may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of
   fertile territory intervening between the Elburz
   mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or
   from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of
   Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All
   accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there
   are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it
   has been usual to assume that they positively fix the
   locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much
   nearer to the Caspian Gates."

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

      See, also, CASPIAN GATES.

RAGÆ.

      See RATÆ.

RAGMAN'S ROLL.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.

RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.

      See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.

RAILROADS, The beginning of.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

RAJA,
RAJAH.
MAHARAJA.

   Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.

RAJPOOTS,
RAJPUTS.
RAJPOOTANA.

   "The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest
   race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the
   Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who
   conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this
   day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of
   the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military
   aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links
   between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove
   with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from
   the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained
   imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.
   In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted
   further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain
   as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of
   Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have
   reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots
   still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power
   and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to
   this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the
   populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the
   Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity
   is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of
   Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore
   or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.
   It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the
   Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of
   Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the
   intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In
   former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas
   of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They
   belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."

      _J. T. Wheeler,
      History of India,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

   "Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or
   petty chiefships may still be found existing in various
   degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput
   Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political
   importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the
   independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest
   clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract
   that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be
   drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward
   to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border
   of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and
   South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States
   under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across
   India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into
   nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput
   clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.
   To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,
   belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and
   Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and
   Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."

      _Sir A. C. Lyall,
      Asiatic Studies,
      chapter 8._

RALEIGH, Sir Walter:
   Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586, and 1587-1590.

   Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.

      See EL DORADO.

RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.

   The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
   Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
   hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
   de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
   Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
   Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
   and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
   of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
   Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
   duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
   survived her husband thirteen years.
{2624}
   During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
   his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
   and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
   Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
   great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
   "to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
   continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
   evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
   profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
   The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
   death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
   there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a
   woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
   literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
   and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
   by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
   the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
   education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
   man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
   the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
   influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
   lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
   previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
   two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
   and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
   imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
   The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
   said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
   years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
   page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
   from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
   in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
   Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
   Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
   Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
   grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
   the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
   daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
   Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
   Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
   Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
   brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
   added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
   Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
   Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
   Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
   Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
   Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
   unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
   to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
   Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
   1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
   after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
   ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
   l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
   supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
   de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
   whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
   that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
   circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
   that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
   imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
   'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
   believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
   Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
   no intention of attacking any particular person among the
   'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
   eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
   that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
   reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
   edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
   ['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
   Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
   provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
   unskilful imitation."

      _T. F. Crane,
      Introduction to "La Société Française au
      Dix-Septième Siècle."_

      ALSO IN:
      _A. G. Mason,
      The Women of the French Salons,
      chapters 2-7._

RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

RAMESES,
RAAMSES,
RAMSES,
   Treasure-city of.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

RAMESSIDS, The.

   The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
   I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.

RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

RAMIRO I.'
   King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.

   Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.

   Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.

   Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.

   Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.

RAMNES.
RAMNIANS, The.

      See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.

RAMOTH-GILEAD.

   The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
   Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
   warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
   It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
   Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
   Damascus.

      _1 Kings, xxii._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 33._

RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.

      See RAJPOOTS.

RANDOLPH, Edmund,
   and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.

   In the Cabinet of President Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

RANJIT SINGH,
RUNJIT SINGH,
   The conquests of.

      See SIKHS.

{2625}

RANTERS.
MUGGLETONIANS.

   "'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,
   'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in
   Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,
   and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and
   called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they
   conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them
   to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the
   Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward
   man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are
   pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
   newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of
   them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,
   but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes
   had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
   contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,
   when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as
   Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two
   associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who
   professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation
   xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
   alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real
   man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon
   earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent
   him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,
   leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not
   extinct yet."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 5, pages 17-20._

RAPALLO,
   Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

   Massacre at (1494).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

RAPES OF SUSSEX.

   "The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'
   [each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been
   made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a
   nearly similar territorial division."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, foot-note._

   "The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied
   the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian
   legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an
   opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from
   the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to
   Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5._

RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RAPID INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.

RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

RAPPAREES.
TORIES.

   "Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]
   whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,
   or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be
   found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had
   lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from
   an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage
   from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was
   intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated
   from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these
   fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at
   the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after
   the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and
   their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,
   waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their
   successors. After the first years of the 18th century,
   however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and
   although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every
   page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer
   attached to them, and they had become the designations of
   ordinary felons, at large in the country."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 7 (volume 2)._

   "The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish
   Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now
   disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and
   William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was
   turned loose to live by marauding."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17 (volume 4)._

   "The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
   knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
   mercy, they gave none."

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,
      part 2, book 5 (volume 3)._

   "Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the
   one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited
   families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the
   Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;
   on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic
   clergy."

      _J. A. Froude,
      The English in Ireland,
      book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

RARITANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RAS.
RASENNA.

      See ETRUSCANS.

RASCIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

RASCOL.
RASKOL.
RASKOLNIKS.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

RASTA, The.

      See LEUGA.

RASTADT, Congress of.
   Murder of French envoys.

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

RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

RATÆ,
RAGÆ.

   A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important
   of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,
   and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the
   town of Leicester."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

RATHS.

   "Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the
   dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a
   period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be
   found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of
   earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or
   tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and
   always surrounded by a rampart,"

      _T. Moore,
      History of Ireland,
      chapter 9._

RATHSMANN,
RATHSMEISTER, etc.

      See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

{2626}

RATISBON:
   Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

RATISBON, Battle of.

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

RATISBON, Catholic League of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.

RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.

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

RAURACI, The.

   An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established
   on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river
   forms at Bâle."

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

RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.

   Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or
   empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or
   high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the
   determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the
   empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles
   from Thessalonica.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4, section 4._

   ----------RAVENNA: Start--------

RAVENNA: B. C. 50.
   Cæsar's advance on Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 52-50.

RAVENNA: A. D. 404.
   Made the capital of the Western Empire.

   "The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to
   that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.
   The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a
   deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which
   connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,
   or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These
   morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and
   though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town
   enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.
   The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost
   pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was
   distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as
   uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage
   was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This
   advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,
   in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West
   [Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal
   safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and
   morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by
   his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the
   exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;
   and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was
   considered as the seat of government and the capital of
   Italy."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.

RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
   Siege and capture by Theodoric.
   Murder of Odoacer.
   Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.
   The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

   "The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city
   his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or
   Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the
   architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of
   stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be
   transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most
   skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute
   some of those very works which we still wonder at in the
   basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief
   memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are
   a church, a palace, and a tomb."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

RAVENNA: A. D. 540.
   Surrender to Belisarius.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.
   The Exarchate.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.
   Decline and fall of the Exarchate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.
   The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
   Taken by the French.
   Battle before the city.
   Defeat of the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

   ----------RAVENNA: End--------

RAVENSPUR.

   The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he
   came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from
   Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.

RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.

RAYMOND, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

REAL, Spanish.

      See SPANISH COINS.

REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.

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

REASON, The Worship of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).

REBECCAITES.
DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.

   Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales
   against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected
   on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of
   no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,
   and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from
   county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise
   given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should
   possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the
   Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their
   proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless
   character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same
   time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended
   law.

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 2, page 131._

RECESS.

   Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

RECHABITES, The.

   An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the
   Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or
   after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly
   withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so
   strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards
   or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly
   confined for means of subsistence to the products of the
   wilderness."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 4, section 1 (volume 4)._

{2627}

RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

RECOLLECTS,
RÉCOLLETS.

   This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
   friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
   recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.

RECONSTRUCTION:
   President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

   President Johnson's plan.

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

   The question in Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
      1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).

      See, also:
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
      TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
      LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

RECULVER, Roman origin of.

      See REGULBIUM.

RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

      See LIBERTY CAP.

RED CROSS, The.

   "A confederation of relief societies in different countries,
   acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under
   the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to
   ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in
   campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the
   conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official
   sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the
   charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself
   munificently, should be organized for the best possible
   utilization. An international public conference was called at
   Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an
   official character, brought together representatives from a
   number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn
   up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five
   Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the
   neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,
   nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe
   conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the
   Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the
   organization was necessarily international, the relief
   societies themselves are entirely national and independent;
   each one governing itself and making its own laws according to
   the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for
   recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general
   provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be
   agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the
   Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in
   which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss
   colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen
   was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red
   Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There
   is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each
   according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best
   suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of
   sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts
   of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods
   of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,
   correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy
   could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.
   In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This
   society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri
   Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views
   by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."

      _History of the Red Cross
      (Washington, 1883)._

RED FORTRESS, The.
   The Alhambra.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

RED LAND, The.

      See VEHMGERICHTS.

RED LEGS.

      See JAYHAWKERS.

RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.
RIEL'S REBELLION.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RED RIVER EXPEDITION.

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

RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

RED TERROR, The.

   The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the
   guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).

REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

REDEMPTIONERS.

   "Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,
   constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar
   feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among
   all manner of people in the old world, and through this
   channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous
   poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,
   felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two
   kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound
   themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to
   their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being
   without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the
   captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be
   sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay
   costs of passage and other expenses."

      _A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
      The Story of an Old Farm,
      chapter 11._

REDEMPTORISTS, The.

   The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,
   founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are
   commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is
   especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes
   of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.

REDONES, The.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

REDSTICKS, The.

   This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

REEVE.

      See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.

REFERENDARIUS.

      See CHANCELLOR.

REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.

   "A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the
   valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.
   Here existed small federations of communities who regulated
   certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of
   delegates from each village. These conventions were not
   allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must
   refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority
   of these approved, the act might be passed at the next
   assembly.
{2628}
   This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,
   and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word
   Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which
   there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If
   not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'
   and carry all questions to the home government. The
   institution as now known is a product of this century. It
   originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the
   time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise
   between the party which strove for pure democracy and that
   desiring representative government, it was provided that all
   laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable
   number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,
   this system slowly found its way into several of the
   German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of
   the federal constitution five were employing the optional
   Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined
   to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight
   states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be
   submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which
   the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are
   directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body
   is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,
   to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required
   varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.
   Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some
   states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as
   a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom
   varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some
   fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the
   election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether
   voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the
   matter is referred by the Executive Council to the
   legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness
   of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to
   be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,
   the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the
   impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.
   The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are
   interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full
   draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points
   desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and
   then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of
   obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by
   actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The
   latter form of consent is indicated either in the town
   meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official
   in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be
   given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton
   taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given
   for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of
   voters had been signed. … The number of names required is
   about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as
   for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of
   signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to
   the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter
   into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two
   months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the
   request. It may also at the same time present an alternate
   proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so
   that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature
   gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or
   propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select
   committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the
   voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having
   been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of
   the land."

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
      chapter 13._

   "Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113
   laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to
   the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular
   vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The
   strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding
   the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of
   the features of the government which is open to future
   discussion."

      _B. Moses,
      The Federal Government of Switzerland,
      page 119._

      See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

   "A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a
   Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or
   its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.
   Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most
   convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,
   to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a
   given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are
   expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of
   the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an
   observer may confidently predict always will meet, with
   fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least
   abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form
   and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is
   chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a
   plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either
   free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods
   by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general
   odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a
   sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.
   The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even
   Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned
   the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon
   President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,
   and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at
   bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,
   carefully considered votes of the French nation given after
   the people had heard all that could be said for and against
   the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,
   however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all
   moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss
   Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed
   before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the
   land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and
   demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been
   'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the
   scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately
   given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the
   people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in
   England has passed through both Houses."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Referendum,
      (Contemporary Review, April, 1890)._

{2629}

   "A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of
   the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,
   and on the popular discrimination between good and bad
   measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum
   is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although
   the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to
   set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three
   to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a
   measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary
   committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is
   unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the
   necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only
   thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the
   signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every
   signature is examined by the national executive to see whether
   it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an
   interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have
   signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public
   discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter
   addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise
   voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes
   against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council
   distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed
   measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of
   the votes is made by the Executive Council as a
   returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with
   election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in
   the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there
   are always irregularities, especially where more than one
   question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is
   the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The
   following table, based on official documents, shows the
   results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;

                                         Passed  Rejected  Total

   (a.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by the Assembly
        (referendum obligatory)             1       6         7

   (b.) Constitutional amendments
        proposed by popular initiative      2       1        *4
        (50,000 signatures)

   (c.) Laws passed by the Assembly        14       6        20
        (referendum demanded by 30,000).

   Total                                   17      13        31

   * One measure still pending.

   Making allowances for cases where more than one question has
   been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four
   popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the
   cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for
   example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other
   questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These
   numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion
   to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by
   the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to
   the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and
   about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments
   usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds
   of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on
   such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;
   thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as
   now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may
   be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience
   shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their
   representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply
   before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by
   the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda
   between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the
   voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach
   67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell
   to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.
   in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of
   recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only
   about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a
   compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on
   both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank
   ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,
   duly considered by the national legislature and passed by
   considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of
   the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that
   there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as
   fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less
   interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing
   bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent
   member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the
   initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four
   things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the
   referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as
   bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest
   bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to
   the initiative. The referendum in the United States would
   therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities
   by permanent town meeting."

      _Prof. A. B. Hart,
      Vox Populi in Switzerland
      (Nation, September 13, 1894)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. L. Lowell,
      The Referendum in Switzerland and America
      (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894)._

      _E. P. Oberholtzer,
      The Referendum in America._

REFORM, Parliamentary.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,
      and 1884-1885.

   ----------REFORMATION: Start--------

REFORMATION:
   Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.

REFORMATION:
   England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.

REFORMATION:
   France.

      See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.

REFORMATION:
   Germany.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
      1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
      also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,
      1546-1552, 1552-1561;
      also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.

REFORMATION:
   Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567

REFORMATION:
   Ireland; its failure.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

REFORMATION:
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.

REFORMATION:
   Piedmont.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

{2630}

REFORMATION:
   Scotland.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
      and 1561-1568.

REFORMATION:
   Sweden and Denmark.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

REFORMATION:
   Switzerland.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
      and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.

   ----------REFORMATION: End--------

REFORMATION, The Counter.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

REGED.

      See CUMBRIA.

REGENSBURG.

      See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly
      known to English readers.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.

   In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that
   the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,
   with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the
   Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great
   battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in
   which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.

      _Livy,
      History,
      II. 19._

REGNI, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

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

REGULBIUM.

   One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish
   coast,—modern Reculver.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

REICHSTAG.

      See DIET, THE GERMANIC.

REIGN OF TERROR, The.

      See TERROR.

REIS EFFENDI.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

REMI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

REMO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

RENAISSANCE, The.

   "The word Renaissance has of late years received a more
   extended significance than that which is implied in our
   English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to
   denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern
   World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to
   the period during which this transition took place, we cannot
   fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and
   that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like
   trying to name the days on which spring in any particular
   season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different
   from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new
   birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by
   this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort
   of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the
   onward progress of which we still participate. The history of
   the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or
   of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the
   attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit
   manifested in the European races. It is no mere political
   mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical
   standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge
   and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the
   Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead
   Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery
   which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual
   energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which
   enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force
   then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the
   spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the
   lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,
   a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial
   prosperity, at a time when other nations were still
   semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th
   century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we
   admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead
   ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from
   long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great
   achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the
   world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be
   classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this
   period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two
   branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic
   exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call
   Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese
   rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar
   system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this
   plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to
   trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,
   illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual
   relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the
   two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to
   be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius
   of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of
   these regions we find two agencies at work, art and
   scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all
   the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the
   Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection
   of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the
   wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the
   value of human speculation, the importance of human life
   regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …
   The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the
   treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same
   time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines
   of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the
   Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and
   the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to
   something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct
   the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter
   of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human
   literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term
   Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and
   encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the
   Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of
   theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer
   subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side
   Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the
   Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on
   the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald
   of new-found religious freedom."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
      chapter 1._

{2631}

   "The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said
   to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These
   dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is
   there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by
   strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so
   complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of
   Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to
   strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more
   subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius
   in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by
   Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the
   last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any
   estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo
   among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.
   To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be
   called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain
   duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the
   eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise
   and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.
   Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth
   century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,
   while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within
   the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,
   the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may
   reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,
   and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging
   chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the
   masters of the latter; and to this also may be given
   Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last
   years of the century."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
      chapters 4-6._

   "It would be difficult to find any period in the history of
   modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in
   history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway
   between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern
   institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the
   days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the
   synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of
   a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch
   and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther
   and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal
   changes in the history of those nations which remained
   Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of
   gravity of European culture."

      _P. Villari,
      Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _J. Burckhardt,
      The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy._

   On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
   France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
   invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
      See, also,
      ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
      FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
      VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
      EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
      ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.

   [Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
   Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:

      _The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries,_

      _Medieval Medicine_

      _The Century of Columbus_

      _The Popes and Science_

      _Catholic Churchmen in Science_

      _Education: How Old The New_
   ]

RÉNE
   (called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
   Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.

   King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.

      See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

RENSSELAER, Van.

      See VAN RENSSELAER.

RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
      also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.

REPARTIMIENTOS.
ENCOMIENDAS.

   Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an
   arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead
   of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,
   free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of
   their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of
   the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the
   colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully
   abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of
   intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,
   and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the
   island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the
   light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the
   rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom
   he fought."

      _W. Irving,
      Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   "The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used
   indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,
   'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of
   Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's
   share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1)._

   "'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;
   'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in
   charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an
   encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four
   military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain
   members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality
   of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the
   Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among
   Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were
   crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given
   these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda
   was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of
   the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the
   doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and
   property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,
   Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,
   Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 262, foot-note._

      See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
   The Agitation for.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.

REPETUNDÆ.

      See CALPURNIAN LAW.

REPHAIM, The.

      See HORITES, THE.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

{2632}

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

   "This [representative government] is the great distinction
   between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or
   republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is
   the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form
   of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor
   Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece
   it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system
   would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she
   had to make between anarchy and despotism."

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

   "Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found
   in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a
   distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,
   a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the
   principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate
   oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council
   entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise
   this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no
   better definition of representation than this: but it appears
   to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather
   than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a
   system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of
   the city republics: but in their international councils and
   leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There
   was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,
   and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the
   Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,
   proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being
   a still nearer approximation to the principles of
   representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise
   the great scheme of representative government, under which
   large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of
   Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political
   rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and
   perils of pure democracy."

      _Sir T. E. May,
      Democracy in Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,
   experiments in popular government, are those which have
   frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At
   the head of these we must place the virtually English
   discovery of government by Representation, which caused
   Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands
   from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and
   to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."

      _Sir H. S. Maine,
      Popular Government,
      page 92._

   "To find the real origin of the modern representative system
   we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the
   early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller
   locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public
   meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over
   matters purely local, but whose most important function seems
   to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief
   who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,
   derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in
   later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for
   the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been
   suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character
   of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long
   life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the
   middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the
   introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their
   simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished
   the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more
   important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of
   these local courts there were on the continent below the
   national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was
   clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township
   assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight
   importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting
   and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's
   court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the
   assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of
   four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the
   tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the
   small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived
   when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to
   have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,
   the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may
   have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision
   of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish
   state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties
   distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that
   courts of this grade came into existence in England and were
   of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the
   representative principle was distinctly expressed, each
   township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's
   court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,
   pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and
   absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and
   preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived
   elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how
   the representative principle originating in them is
   transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern
   national representative system—the most important single
   contribution to the machinery of government made in historic
   times, with the possible exception of federal government."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization during the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

   For an account of the rise and development of the
   representative system in the English Parliament.

      See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.

REPRESENTATIVES, House of.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
   The earlier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.

   The later.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   Liberal and Radical wings.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

REPUBLICANS, Independent.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

RESACA,
   Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA).

   Hood's attack on.

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

RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

{2633}

RESAINA, Battle of.

   A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
   king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
   Mesopotamia.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

RESCH-GLUTHA, The.
   The "Prince of the Captivity."

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

RESCISSORY, Act.

      See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.

RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

RESEN.

      See ROTENNU, THE.

RESIDENCIA.

   "Residencia was the examination or account taken of the
   official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]
   during the term of his residence within the province of his
   jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of
   his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia
   it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could
   neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases
   specified, leave the place."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 250, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Blackmar,
      Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      page 69._

RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.

      See INDIA. A. D. 1877.

RESTITUTION, The Edict of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

RETENNU, The.

      See ROTENNU, THE.

RETHEL, Battle of (1650).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.

REUDIGNI, The.

      See AVIONES.

REUIL, Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.

REVERE, Paul, The ride of.

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

REVIVAL OF LEARNING.

      See RENAISSANCE.

REVOLUTION, The American.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.

REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTION, The Year of.

      See
      EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
      ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
      GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
      AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
      HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
      FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.

REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.

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

REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

REYNOSA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

   ----------RHÆTIA: Start--------

RHÆTIA.
   Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.

   "The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave
   were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of
   Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube
   was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of
   Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,
   belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between
   that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman
   conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16
   and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,
   Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned
   above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni
   were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then
   for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a
   thousand years."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 35._

      See, also, TYROL.

RHÆTIA:
   Settlement of the Alemanni in.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

   ----------RHÆTIA: End--------

RHAGES.

      See RAGA.

RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).

   Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of
   Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from
   Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the
   elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he
   solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts
   without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege
   to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted
   desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.
   387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering
   Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000
   citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives
   were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina
   (about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the
   rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,
   the number of those who retained the means of ransom was
   probably very small."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

RHEIMS:
   Origin of the name.

      See BELGÆ.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.
   The crowning of Charles VII.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.
   Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

RHETRÆ.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

RHINE, The Circle of the.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

RHINE, The Confederation of the.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
      1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

RHINE, Roman passage of the.

   See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.

RHINE LEAGUE, The.

   The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations
   formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for
   the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the
   towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.
   Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.
   Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief
   market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,
   likewise, of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

      _J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      page 158._

      See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

{2634}

   ----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------

RHODE ISLAND:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
   Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
   His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
   His banishment.

   On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at
   Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of
   provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the
   [Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies
   of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were
   rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A
   public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on
   which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general
   thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the
   arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the
   affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She
   brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new
   State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that
   was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the
   asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind
   enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations
   which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so
   comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its
   application has produced the most beneficial result upon
   religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,
   then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well
   versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an
   earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular
   liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly
   minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and
   soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the
   lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel
   Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his
   ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston
   remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of
   Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to
   Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had
   refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they
   would not make a public declaration of their repentance for
   having communion with the churches of England, while they
   lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the
   magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any
   other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;
   therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without
   advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they
   would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'
   This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the
   election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it
   so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the
   hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day
   the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their
   minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set
   forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great
   extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical
   polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their
   church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to
   require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying
   all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part
   of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the
   prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As
   a political measure this interference failed of its object.
   The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the
   church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet
   be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was
   effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in
   denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the
   doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a
   system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,
   obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of
   Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At
   Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry
   to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The
   principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.
   … The opportunities there presented for cultivating an
   intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the
   neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an
   important influence, not only in creating the State of which
   he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New
   England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or
   Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the
   Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the
   Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now
   the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and
   steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a
   friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of
   his exile."

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of the State of Rhode Island and
      Providence Plantations,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but
   supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His
   ministry was popular in the main and his person universally
   liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did
   not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,
   departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he
   acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the
   church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,
   became his successor. At Salem he was again under the
   surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they
   were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in
   Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on
   the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his
   doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to
   take away from the natives their land without paying them for
   it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was
   doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day
   its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been
   good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent
   because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian
   prince who discovered New England, and because he called
   Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not
   scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon
   as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his
   life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the
   treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The
   patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.
{2635}
   It had been granted in England to an English trading company,
   and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable
   legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the
   rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which
   they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They
   were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore
   were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When
   they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got
   it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an
   unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds
   in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,
   since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,
   propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the
   offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is
   impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal
   rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,
   such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards
   that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,
   though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their
   own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their
   anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by
   him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an
   unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,
   because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by
   such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath
   being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from
   anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to
   desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The
   magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first
   subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then
   formally summoning him to answer for himself before the
   General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned
   for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under
   question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but
   allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened
   that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court
   for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as
   belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came
   up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give
   satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that
   the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they
   adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally
   indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says
   Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,
   appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of
   their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His
   Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'
   Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,
   but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his
   rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to
   the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,
   laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its
   pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy
   against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people
   against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town
   suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but
   yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams
   stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of
   Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The
   court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to
   advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be
   sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.
   Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to
   dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation
   begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun
   sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,
   October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious
   'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one
   advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but
   felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,
   'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six
   weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the
   magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his
   opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about
   Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily
   spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England
   [see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how
   Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into
   the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one
   fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what
   bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on
   the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."

      _T. Durfee,
      Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
      Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886._

   "The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
   exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
   instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
   colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
   upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
   by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
   no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
   patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
   had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
   private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
   fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
   their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
   contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
   agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
   of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
   of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
   the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
   dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
   did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
   the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
   testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
   in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
   matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
   him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
   the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
   repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
   were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
   denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
   having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
   asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
   identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
{2636}
   It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
   covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
   did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
   was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
   the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
   Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
   equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
   controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
   zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
   never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
   the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
   private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
   policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
   any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
   Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
   whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
   were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
   cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
   which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
   be ripened under another sky."

      _J. L. Diman,
      Orations and Essays,
      pages 114-117._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
   The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
   His followers.
   The settlement at Providence.

   The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams
   after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at
   Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than
   thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the
   hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was
   unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house
   and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England
   winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever
   honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer
   my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and
   heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
   the place from any English claims or patents. I took his
   prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all
   other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem
   (though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,
   wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of
   God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at
   Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient
   friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his
   own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising
   me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they
   were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other
   side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free
   before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should
   be loving neighbors together. These were the joint
   understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
   Governors and others, in their day, together with their
   counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this
   place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of
   the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time
   after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion
   affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
   Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and
   godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,
   answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found
   true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a
   harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as
   good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and
   I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their
   motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested
   and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their
   bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and
   Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
   bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,
   beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with
   English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief
   mart and port of New England."

      _Letters of Roger Williams;
      edited by J. R. Bartlett,
      pages 335-336._

   "According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing
   extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there
   by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the
   'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding
   intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had
   acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at
   Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and
   other references differently, and conclude that the journey
   must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club
   Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is
   that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that
   is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by
   land, and the rest by sea."

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      chapter 5, and foot-note._

   Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island
   history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's
   work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk
   was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic
   Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean
   again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500
   miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had
   to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if
   in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did
   Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not
   answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett
   Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into
   the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most
   High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly
   could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a
   boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely
   tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)
   winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did
   they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression
   in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which
   was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When
   Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,
   'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast
   inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with
   the imagination. No such conference ever took place."

      _S. S. Rider,
      Roger Williams
      (Book Notes, volume 11, page 148)._

{2637}

   It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams
   fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the
   lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from
   Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,
   the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he
   lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens
   of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his
   friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at
   Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he
   required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk
   River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and
   where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the
   beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a
   short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of
   Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,
   he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But
   scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was
   again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from
   Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as
   related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon
   abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he
   had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk
   River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might
   rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five
   others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."
   Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known
   as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of
   the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful
   slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the
   spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of
   Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well
   as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions
   began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A
   little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring
   is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble
   voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the
   weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a
   city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude
   to the superintending Providence which had protected him and
   guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …
   was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.
   Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his
   nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts
   Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard
   him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems
   of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate
   their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is
   reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival
   in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with
   his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing
   from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he
   might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the
   Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the
   rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the
   sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and
   at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus
   and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and
   jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It
   was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could
   have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"

      _W. Gammell,
      Life of Roger Williams
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapters 1 and 4._

      _W. R Staples,
      Annals of Providence,
      chapter 1._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
   Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
   His conveyance of the same to his associates.

   "The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to
   obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He
   probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the
   territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed
   to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.
   'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
   March, the second year of the plantation or planting at
   Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,
   Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
   Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams
   the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called
   Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,
   establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the
   river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of
   Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
   the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and
   services he hath continually done for us, both with our
   friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,
   or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from
   those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and
   meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we
   have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.
   The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The
   mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus
   ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
   accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an
   equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of
   December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance
   to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had
   unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself
   personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the
   following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,
   that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the
   Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one
   thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand
   six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus
   and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and
   in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the
   two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
   sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after
   the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of
   these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great
   hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of
   Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent
   promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be
   land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided
   that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made
   covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and
   natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's
   merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place
   Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons
   distressed for conscience.
{2638}
   I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
   countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving
   friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,
   Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,
   Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter
   here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we
   should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and
   disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
   were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we
   received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,
   William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and
   others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's
   merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not
   by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous
   that monies could not do it, but by that language,
   acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
   which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and
   venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great
   sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay
   engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to
   my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
   some loving friends, that I should receive some loving
   consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that
   every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of
   enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty
   shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty
   pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
   person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in
   love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of
   succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the
   said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the
   year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I
   delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief
   sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned
   lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of
   the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
   reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of
   the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,
   under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that
   deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my
   executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any
   of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be
   received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but
   that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,
   shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises
   and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents
   bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and
   assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be
   laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or
   parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue
   or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage
   whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the
   said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,
   through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
   my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the
   present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger
   Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve
   persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and
   Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not
   pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but
   that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person
   who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
   stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the
   reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."

      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      chapter 8._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.
   The Pequot War.

   "Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The
   Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots
   were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of
   the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the
   lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war
   were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,
   assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on
   one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.
   The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the
   Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,
   page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.
   Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful
   influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of
   the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and
   Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to
   prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page
   269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with
   Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,
   the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter
   by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,
   (Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The
   Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and
   the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought
   actively for the English in the war."

      _S. S. Rider,
      Political results of the Banishment of Williams
      (Book Notes, volume 8, number 17)._

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
   The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
   The founding of Newport.

   Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was
   undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.
   1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John
   Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of
   the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless
   they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken
   to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place
   of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the
   magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an
   independent organization, they presently purchased of the
   Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful
   and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The
   price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional
   gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants
   agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of
   Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.
   Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate
   themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord
   Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'
   began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as
   their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist
   him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those
   who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'
   removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

{2639}

   "This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the
   following spring some of their number moved to the south-west
   part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The
   northern part of the island which was first occupied was
   called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as
   they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this
   settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and
   family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There
   is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned
   any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable
   life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed
   to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members
   of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the
   Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken
   into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which
   existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the
   Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and
   Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the
   title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three
   elders to assist him. This form of government continued until
   1640."

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      chapter 6._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
   The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
   The charter and the Union.
   Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.

   "The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in
   the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed
   theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are
   hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of
   Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or
   passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be
   made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the
   major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,
   incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others
   as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never
   before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the
   separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by
   this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil
   things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,
   was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.
   Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and
   distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the
   right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right
   of independent action in civil matters, those who had
   condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed
   that no well ordered government could exist in connection with
   liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.
   Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister
   with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in
   Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he
   bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between
   them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was
   founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population
   the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen
   charged with the principal functions of administration,
   subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town
   meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions
   take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet
   untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as
   original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of
   it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the
   natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his
   Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought
   their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the
   whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went
   so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of
   the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted
   on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of
   Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of
   Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in
   1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to
   England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured
   up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a
   conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him
   to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned
   with full success. … He found the King at open war with the
   Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted
   to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two
   Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but
   on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and
   absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of
   Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …
   Civil government and civil laws were the only government and
   laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to
   religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams
   avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize
   the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet
   more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into
   full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in
   May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court
   of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize
   a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although
   not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges
   with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new
   government was in reality a government of the people, to whose
   final decision in their General Assembly all questions were
   submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is
   agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this
   present act declared, that the form of government established
   in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 3 and 5._

   "The form of government being settled, they now prepared such
   laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of
   it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,
   before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,
   they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,
   1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly
   from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own
   forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their
   present condition required.
{2640}
   These laws, for securing of right, for determining
   controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and
   punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any
   of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of
   all other Christian countries at that time in this
   particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not
   punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were
   persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.
   Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended
   to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such
   objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own
   words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].
   'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to
   continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,
   we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties
   to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of
   the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought
   it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,
   and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my
   brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of
   the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against
   the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write
   a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,
   is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.
   To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this
   case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls
   in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true
   picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or
   society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and
   Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.
   Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of
   conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two
   hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,
   be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,
   secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or
   worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never
   denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of
   the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to
   command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and
   practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If
   any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to
   pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,
   towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey
   the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their
   common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up
   against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or
   write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,
   because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor
   officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor
   punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever
   is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,
   compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their
   deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
   may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,
   to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious
   of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This
   religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but
   uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,
   soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New
   England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly
   alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four
   united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,
   Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with
   them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent
   their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the
   country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the
   following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the
   foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.
   to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil
   authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates
   of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the
   people of the neighbouring governments only, was this
   principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to
   the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,
   in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord
   protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this
   paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this
   poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a
   birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We
   being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in
   the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English
   over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present
   frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing
   with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in
   all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies
   do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against
   us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant
   misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,
   hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and
   parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians
   and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their
   writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this
   colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and
   quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,
   because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which
   was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though
   religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,
   and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of
   different sentiments to live in the same country with them.
   Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first
   came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,
   should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got
   clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too
   much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about
   religion itself. With people of both these characters, the
   fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed
   to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and
   supported without some particular mode of religion was
   established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:
   And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to
   have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,
   for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this
   colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these
   words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a
   most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
   maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full
   liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,
   rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and
   greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts
   of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"

      _Stephen Hopkins,
      Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
      2d Series, volume 9)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _Records of the Colony of Rhode Island
      and Providence Plantations,
      volume 1._

{2641}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.
   The first Baptist Church.

   "There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious
   tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of
   their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and
   Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects
   government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,
   moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,
   Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be
   members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact
   of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.
   They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and
   order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until
   dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant
   or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect
   it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but
   such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make
   them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained
   ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached
   to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of
   any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they
   did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for
   Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by
   immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.
   Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.
   By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been
   members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those
   churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and
   called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first
   church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present
   day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.
   Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then
   resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter
   of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand
   Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams
   left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was
   baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for
   some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the
   Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,
   there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any
   person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor
   could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great
   Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was
   not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the
   ministry and ordinances of the christian church were
   irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been
   supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while
   in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the
   church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his
   connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of
   Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,
   after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,
   the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his
   administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and
   joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he
   could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."

      _W. R. Staples,
      Annals of the town of Providence,
      chapter 7._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.
   Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.

   "Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
   Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
   crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
   language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
   seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
   It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
   conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
   obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
   also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
   character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
   God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
   learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
   styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
   seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
   which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
   was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
   Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
   Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
   community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
   peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
   pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
   1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
   schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
   staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
   to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
   flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
   make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
   few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
   Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
   Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
   Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
   his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
   attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
   citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
   memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
   regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
   to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
   the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
   be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
   politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
   Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
{2642}
   Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
   and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
   occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
   usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
   withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
   Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
   principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      pages 163-168._

   "Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a
   subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …
   purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that
   Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as
   Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,
   Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in
   their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced
   the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous
   language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally
   liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the
   forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
   of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,
   when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was
   organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured
   in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers
   had now returned, though not named in the charter, was
   admitted to its privileges."

      _C. Deane,
      New England
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 9)._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
   Coddington's usurpation.
   Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
   Restoration of the Charter.
   First enactment against Slavery.

   In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President
   some time before, but who had gone to England without legally
   entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from
   the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor
   of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of
   six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled
   the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger
   Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed
   the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.
   … In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island
   towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.
   On the success of their application hung the fate of the
   Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to
   Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to
   govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate
   as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in
   the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of
   May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …
   that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond
   or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'
   and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall
   sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved
   to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the
   Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation
   concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should
   seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a
   slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act
   was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a
   thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a
   great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …
   Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in
   October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission
   for the colony to act under the charter until the final
   decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the
   revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully
   restored."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 6._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.
   Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
   The Charter from Charles II,
   and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.

   "At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
   enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
   to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
   in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
   accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
   about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
   Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
   Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
   business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
   His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
   forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
   in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
   Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
   'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
   called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
   sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
   Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
   explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
   the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
   Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
   of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
   land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
   heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
   naturally desired that their property should be placed under
   the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
   government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
   the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
   made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
   maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
   her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
   for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
   Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
   charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
   River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
   wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
   Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
   with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
   negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
   composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
   articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
   should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
   said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
   Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
   Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
   would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
   thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
   Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
   the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
   the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
   of her domain."
{2643}
   On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
   probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
   the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
   and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
   English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
   New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
   in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
   to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
   said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
   molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
   difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
   actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
   Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
   between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
   choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
   Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
   known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
   latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
   to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
   imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
   beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
   the inharmonious neighbors."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      Compendious History of New England,
      book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. S. Rider,
      Book Notes,
      volume 10, pages 109-110. _

      _S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.
   King Philip's War.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.
   Death of Roger Williams.
   Estimates of his character.

   Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have
   died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,
   Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me
   but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he
   deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his
   disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …
   If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this
   town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and
   exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is
   certain, however, that he died at some time between January
   16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his
   age."

      _J. D. Knowles,
      Memoir of Roger Williams,
      pages 111 and 354._

   "We call those great who have devoted their lives to some
   noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the
   course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams
   deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the
   greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He
   was not the first to discover the principles of religious
   liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their
   plenitude, and to found and build up a political community
   with those principles as the basis of its organization. The
   influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious
   liberty and democratic government upon the political system of
   our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably
   stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the
   History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams
   founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the
   principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the
   uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The
   theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools
   of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in
   the government of a small community. It was prophesied that
   the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a
   general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire
   religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be
   of short duration. But these institutions have not only
   maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole
   union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of
   Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,
   the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout
   America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,
   and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the
   background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"

      _O. S. Straus,
      Roger Williams,
      page 233._

   "Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete
   religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was
   'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the
   last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards
   bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are
   'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not
   accomplish the work they are here to do."

      _C. F. Adams,
      Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,
      page 25._

   "The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems
   ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in
   opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one
   of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.
   Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now
   looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in
   New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather
   fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and
   saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in
   their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and
   freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,
   the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the
   pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his
   indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a
   few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed
   the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them
   words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;
   for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes
   of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a
   man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From
   his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger
   Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,
   always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender
   charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some
   sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one
   of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by
   halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his
   minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment
   which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further
   whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism
   was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his
   organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his
   contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,
   turbulent, even seditious."

      _M. C. Tyler,
      History of American Literature,
      chapter 9, section 4._

{2644}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.
   The consolidation of New England
   under Governor-general Andros.

   See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.
   The charter government reinstated and confirmed.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.
   King William's War.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.
   The founding of the Redwood Library.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany,
   and Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Sugar Act.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.
   The Declaratory Act.
   The Stamp Act Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.
   The founding of Brown University.

   Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the
   interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that
   denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed
   first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was
   named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
   The Townshend Duties.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
   Committees of Correspondence instituted.
   The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
   The destruction of the Gaspe.
   The first overt act of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
   and the Quebec Act.-
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
   The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
   Ticonderoga.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.
   Early naval enterprises in the war.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776
      BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
   Allegiance to the king renounced.
   State independence declared.
   The British occupation.

   "The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of
   May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional
   Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its
   allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session
   with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as
   expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United
   Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was
   received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a
   national salute and military display. At Providence the King's
   arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,
   'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From
   the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode
   Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of
   August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly
   subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving
   her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In
   November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a
   British army of her principal island. The seat of government
   was removed to Providence."

      _G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 24-25._

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
   The War of Independence to the end.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
   Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
   After the War of Independence.
   Paper-money.
   Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
   Tardy entrance into the Union.
   Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.

   "The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
   treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
   the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
   was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
   the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
   been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
   the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
   insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
   traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
   reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
   failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
   many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
   the commercial class; and the former party had a large
   majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
   arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
   not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
   prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
   compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
   they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
   tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
   authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
   however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
   Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
   national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
   a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
   'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
   respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
   the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
   liberty as a matter of her own interest.
{2645}
   Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
   machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
   did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
   when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
   elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
   paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
   sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
   that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
   by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
   money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
   majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
   with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
   was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
   in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
   convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
   suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
   that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
   Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
   demonstration, celebrated the event."

      _G. L. Harney,
      How Rhode Island received the Constitution
      (New England Magazine, May, 1890)._

   "The country party was in power, and we have seen that
   elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural
   population that hated change. The action of the other states
   had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing
   strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the
   adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to
   vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates
   to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,
   even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of
   three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly
   on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more
   democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the
   Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal
   constitution should be ratified in the different states by
   conventions of delegates elected by the people for that
   purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did
   not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,
   the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the
   constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the
   voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth
   Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be
   out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood
   two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two
   thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about
   four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor
   Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a
   few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then
   existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state
   has been singular from her sister states in the mode of
   collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,
   it was not done with the least design to give any offence to
   the respectable body who composed the convention, or a
   disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure
   republican principles, founded upon that basis of all
   governments originally derived from the body of the people at
   large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great
   against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,
   conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which
   could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.
   They are sensible that the present powers invested with
   Congress are incompetent for the great national government of
   the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient
   authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws
   throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce
   and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish
   funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the
   voters of the country was undoubtedly against the
   constitution, but convention after convention was carried by
   the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode
   Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead
   her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the
   constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.
   Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,
   sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in
   Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of
   it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran
   the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a
   democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new
   constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward
   that form of government from which we have lately dissolved
   our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and
   treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration
   thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to
   men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the
   United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this
   circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended
   danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,
   that with these impressions, they should wait to see the
   proposed system organized and in operation, to see what
   further checks and securities would be agreed to and
   established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it
   as a constitution of government for themselves and their
   posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand
   alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just
   referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,
   comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I
   have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,
   Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped
   to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she
   believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so
   strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first
   session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and
   passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,
   though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state
   to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in
   force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at
   practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the
   pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the
   amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress
   shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
   prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of
   speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
   to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
   grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor
   excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
   inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for
   other highly important provisions."

      _H. Rogers,
      Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
      (Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890)._

{2646}

   The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and
   ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in
   March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and
   there completed its work.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

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

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
   The Dorr Rebellion.
   The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.

   The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged
   until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of
   suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the
   legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its
   cities increased in population, became causes of great popular
   discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands
   for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious
   attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry
   through a revision of the constitution independently of
   legislative action. A convention was held in October of that
   year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote
   of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,
   and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held
   the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,
   and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally
   inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were
   in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by
   the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of
   the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted
   as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the
   result might have been different. This was the course desired
   and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid
   men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,
   disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order
   government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of
   success. While the People's government was being organized in
   Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the
   same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and
   passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in
   the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …
   declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which
   was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's
   legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this
   arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a
   plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the
   request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington
   and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of
   President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties
   were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at
   this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined
   to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled
   the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain
   possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather
   ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more
   abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than
   himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an
   armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power
   confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed
   without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In
   June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the
   General Assembly had called still another convention, which
   met in September and … framed the present constitution, making
   an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that
   demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November
   this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into
   effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the
   Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the
   state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained
   beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and
   in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,
   issued an address explaining and justifying his course and
   announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.
   Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without
   concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.
   Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,
   without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in
   which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness
   or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.
   Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's
   acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in
   Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every
   point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,
   while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of
   the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,
   and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from
   his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to
   imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if
   he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.
   Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until
   June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was
   released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the
   prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his
   father's house, which he had not entered since he began his
   contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.
   The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,
   congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy
   justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular
   rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the
   prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The
   close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his
   constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never
   recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and
   much suffering."

      _C. H. Payne,
      The Great Dorr War
      (New England Magazine, June, 1890)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. King,
      Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr._

{2647}

RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
   Constitutional Amendment.
   The qualification of the Suffrage.

   "The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode
   Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective
   franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began
   in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80
   years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political
   changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the
   consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly
   some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The
   qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.
   That power was given to the General Assembly. A property
   qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and
   has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at
   first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,
   without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to
   be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge
   Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that
   by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be
   of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition
   was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the
   charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him
   by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and
   enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made
   to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of
   February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure
   (Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until
   the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this
   qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then
   (in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never
   changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet
   the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old
   tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in
   paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In
   1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'
   was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system
   came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.
   Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the
   dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to
   $133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it
   has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment
   it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a
   question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was
   practically no change in the qualifications required of a man
   to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In
   1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A
   convention was called and a constitution was framed and
   submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for
   adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of
   three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the
   origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present
   constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition
   to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of
   any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The
   political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to
   wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and
   those other native American citizens of other states who had
   moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To
   these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal
   property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,
   and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to
   vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no
   land. It was taxation without representation, the very
   principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828
   more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by
   men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North
   Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over
   twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832
   five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode
   Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,
   had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another
   respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation
   of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a
   representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to
   every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in
   taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation
   that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters
   actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the
   political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were
   about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans
   with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The
   agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so
   violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a
   committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which
   committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's
   Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the
   agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention
   was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The
   question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.
   Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not
   only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but
   he intended American citizens of other American States. He
   would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,
   who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he
   would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live
   here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.
   These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far
   as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most
   disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form
   one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This
   discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men
   born in countries outside of the United States, became more
   pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November
   1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land
   qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of
   property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote
   otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the
   People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr
   Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it
   admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal
   footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This
   Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present
   Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the
   disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception
   of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes
   were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as
   all the various propositions had provided with the single
   exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the
   amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have
   reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the
   People's Constitution:

{2648}

   Qualification of Electors under Amendment
   (Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.

   Section 1.
   Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
   years, who has had his residence and home in this State for
   two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to
   vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and
   whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he
   resides on or before the last day of December, in the year
   next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right
   to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all
   questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:
   Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote
   in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any
   proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money
   in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next
   preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,
   valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.


   Qualification of Electors under the People's
   (Dorr) Constitution, 1842.

   Section 1.
   Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of
   twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,
   and in any town, city or district of the same for six months
   next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall
   be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may
   hereafter be made eligible by the people. **

   Section 4.
   No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable
   property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and
   fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay
   any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for
   one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to
   vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,
   or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *

   Section 7.
   There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
   * * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
   not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
   opened.


   It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
   adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
   qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
   in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
   of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
   even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
   vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."

      _S. S. Rider,
      The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
      (Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57)._

   ----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------

   ----------RHODES: Start--------

RHODES.

   The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
   identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
   southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
   in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
   place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
   famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
   the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
   COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
   their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
   wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
   middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
   city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
   John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
   held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
   siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
   Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
   history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
   merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
   great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
   abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
   bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
   was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
   lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
   … It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
   statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
   doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
   system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
   all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
   the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
   their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
   means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
   confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
   that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
   commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
   appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
   the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
   business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
   wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
   plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
   in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
   a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
   pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
   works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
   attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
   Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"

      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapter 20, with foot-note._

RHODES: B. C. 412.
   Revolt from Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
   In the new Athenian Confederacy.
   Revolt and secession.
   The Social War.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
   Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

   One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
   brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
   305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
   Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
   Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
   B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
   age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
   wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
   Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
   sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
   united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
   Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
   1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
   forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
   Rhodians.

      _C. Torr,
      Rhodes in Ancient Times,
      pages 13-14, 44._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 59._

{2649}

RHODES: B. C. 191.
   Alliance with Rome.
   War with Antiochus the Great.
   Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

RHODES: B. C. 88.
   Besieged by Mithridates.

   At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
   Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
   Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
   repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
   forced to abandon the siege.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

RHODES: A. D. 1310.
   Conquest and occupation by the
   Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.

RHODES: A. D. 1480.
   Repulse of the Turks.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

RHODES: A. D. 1522.
   Siege and conquest by the Turks.
   Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.

   ----------RHODES: End--------

RHODES, The Colossus of.

   "In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
   we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
   is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
   the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
   port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
   easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
   the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
   reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
   being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
   devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
   Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
   Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
   of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
   Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
   the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
   the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
   between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
   truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
   siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
   Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
   fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
   commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
   deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
   expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
   the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
   island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
   ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
   pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
   after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."

      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties,
      chapter 1._

RHODES, Knights of.

   During their occupation of the island, the Knights
   Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
   Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
   Malta.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

RI, The.

   "The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
   'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
   merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
   line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
   their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
   tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
   As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 140._

      See, also, TUATH, THE.

RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

RIBBON SOCIETIES.
RIBBONISM.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.

RIBCHESTER, Origin of.

      See COCCIUM.

RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

RICHARD
   (of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.

   Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.

   Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.

   Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.

RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.

      See RUTUPIÆ.

RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.

   ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
   Lafayette's defense of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
   Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
   McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (MAY: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE: VIRGINIA);
      (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
      and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
   Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
   Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
   Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
   Destructive conflagration.
   President Lincoln in the city.

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

   ----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------

RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH

RIDGEWAY, Battle of.

      See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.

RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.

   The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
   'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
   Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
   Angles.

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 1, note._

RIEL'S REBELLION.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.

      See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

{2650}

RIGA: A. D. 1621.
   Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.

   In France, and several other continental European countries,
   political parties in the legislative bodies are named
   according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
   their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
   the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
   known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
   similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
   called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
   of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
   designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
   "The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
   there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
   Center."

RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
      and (OCTOBER).

RIGSDAG, The.

   The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.

      See
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

RIGSRET.

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

RIGVEDA, The.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
      CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

RIMINI,
   Origin of the city.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

RIMINI,
   The Malatesta family.

      See MALATESTA FAMILY.

RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
   Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

RIMMON.

   "The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
   frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
   derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 2._

RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

RINGGOLD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

RINGS OF THE AVARS.

      See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.

RIOTS, Draft.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.

RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

RIPON, Treaty of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.

      See FRANKS.

RIPUARIANS, Law of the.

   "On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
   eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
   resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
   compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
   the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
   511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
   of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
   ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
   under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
   the definite form under which it has reached us."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10._

RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.

      See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
   The first attempts at English settlement in America.
   The lost colony.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.

ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
   Capture by Burnside's Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

ROBE, La Noblesse de la.

      See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

ROBERT,
   Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.

   Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.

   Robert I., King of France, 922-923.

   Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.

   Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.

   Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.

   Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.

ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
      to 1794 (JULY).

ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

ROBOGDII, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROCHAMBEAU,
   Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
      1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

   ----------ROCHELLE: Start--------

ROCHELLE:
   Early Importance.
   Expulsion of the English.
   Grant of Municipal independence.

   "Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
   of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
   the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
   the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
   also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
   enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
   period of the English wars.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.

   It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
   dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
   manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
   privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
   the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
   citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
   to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
   Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
   early period."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
      in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
      chapter 14._

{2651}

      ALSO IN:
      _H. M. Baird,
      History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
      volume 2, page 270-273._

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
   Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
   Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
   Siege and successful defense.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
   Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
   The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
   Renewed revolt.
   Second treaty of Montpelier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
   Revolt in alliance with England.
   Siege and surrender.
   Richelieu's dyke.
   The decay of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.

   ----------ROCHELLE: End--------

ROCHESTER, England:
   Origin.

   One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
   identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
   derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
   Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
   who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
   greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapters 5 and 16._

ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.

ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
   Siege and Battle.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
   Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
   Recovered by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.

RODOLPH.

      See RUDOLPH.

ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).

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

ROGATION.

   With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
   Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
   people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
   practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
   as Bill and Law are by ourselves."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

ROGER I.,
   Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.

ROGER II.,
   Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
   King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.

ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

ROHILLA WAR, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

ROIS FAINÉANS.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ROLAND, The great Bell.

      See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

ROLICA, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ROLLO, Duke,
   The conquest of Normandy by.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
      and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.

ROLLS OF THE PIPE.
ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.

      See EXCHEQUER.

ROMA QUADRATA.

      See PALATINE HILL.

ROMAGNA.

   The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
   of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
   Romandiola, or Romagna."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      pages 234 and 238._

ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

ROMAN AUGURS.

      See AUGURS.

ROMAN CALENDAR.
ROMAN YEAR.

      See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

      See CAMPAGNA.

ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.

      See CATACOMBS.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

      See PAPACY,
      and CATHOLICS.

   ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
   Under the Republic.

      See CIVES ROMANI;
      also, QUIRITES.

ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
   Under the Empire.

   "While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
   rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
   give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
   Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
   title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
   or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
   numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
   rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
   Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
   but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
   beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
   Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
   The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
   in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
   downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
   facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
   them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
   undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
   hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
   has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
   the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
   communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
   progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
   consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
   present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
   211-217]."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 67, with foot-note._

   ----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------

ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.

   The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
   maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
   celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
   dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
   by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
   on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
   procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
   Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
   but one competition, and that between not more that two
   competitors."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 15. _

{2652}

ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.

ROMAN COMITIA.

      See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
      AND COMITIA CURIATA.

ROMAN CONSULS.

      See CONSUL.

ROMAN CONTIONES.

      See CONTIONES.

ROMAN DECEMVIRS.

      See DECEMVIRS.

ROMAN EDUCATION.

      See EDUCATION, ROMAN.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
   Its beginning, and after.

      See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
   Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.

      See ROME: A. D. 455-476.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
   Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
   Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.

      See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
   Founded by Otto the Great.
   Later Origin of the Name.

   "The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
   commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
   of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
   creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
   as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
   [Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
   upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
   the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
   professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
   many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
   reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
   or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
   Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
   character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
   spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
   spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
   Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
   a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
   It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
   only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
   among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
   Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
   Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
   culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
   Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
   the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
   under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
   is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
   contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
   Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
   of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
   Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
   successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
   time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
   indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
   many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
   in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
   since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
   sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
   ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
   that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
   may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
   injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
   use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
   wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
   of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
   that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
   the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
   substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
   already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
   technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
   of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
   never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
   beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
   practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
   Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
   two centuries later."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note._

   Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
   Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
   the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
   John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
   of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
   coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
   years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
   and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
   not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
   by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
   to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
   Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
   suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
   all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
   to the pope as his viceroy.

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1._

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
      and ROMANS: KING OF THE.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
   Rise of the College of Electors.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
   Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
   The Great Interregnum.
   Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
   Its character.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
   Its end.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

   ----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------

ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

      See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.

ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.

      See GENS.

ROMAN FETIALES.

      See FETIALES.

ROMAN INDICTION.

      See INDICTIONS.

{2653}

ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.

   "Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
   science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
   to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
   is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
   concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
   students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
   of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
   other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
   construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
   example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
   achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
   understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
   criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
   jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
   Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
   criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
   writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
   of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
   are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
   fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
   Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
   German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
   Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
   libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
   They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
   informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
   then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
   the given data according to the general principles of their
   science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
   one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
   than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
   volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
   Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
   tincture of non–legal elements."

      _E. Reich,
      Graeco-Roman Institutions,
      pages 3-13._

   "'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
   law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
   documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
   but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
   A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
   the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
   fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
   jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
   have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
   legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
   but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
   the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
   Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
   remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
   between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
   be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
   the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
   a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
   fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
   men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
   jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
   Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
   English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
   actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
   under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
   which a response might be given, except the skill and
   ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
   principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
   the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
   of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
   The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
   The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few
   jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
   and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
   Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
   treatises rather than of responses."

      _T. W. Dwight,
      Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."_

   "Apart from the more general political conditions on which
   jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
   depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
   lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
   defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
   and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
   objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
   appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
   their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
   former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
   advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
   so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
   both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
   two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
   fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
   spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
   demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
   the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
   state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
   by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
   liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
   permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
   contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
   where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
   all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
   debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
   towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
   presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
   most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
   bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
   right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
   pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
   foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
   symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
   not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
   ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
   not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
   which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
   years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
   which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
   humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
   more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
   that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
   yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
   greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
   fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
   system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
   of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
   and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
   unmodified."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._

{2654}

   "Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
   is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
   inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
   property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
   methods by which person and property may be secured with least
   inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
   after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
   themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
   requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
   cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
   direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
   simplified and illuminated the native legal material."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      page 209._

   "In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
   the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
   Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
   sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
   was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
   esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
   clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
   not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
   it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
   method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
   somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
   gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
   intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
   virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
   mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
   good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
   ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
   Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
   dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
   Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
   hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
   the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
   practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
   the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
   judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
   copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
   Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
   local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
   the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
   existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
   said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
   always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
   'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
   Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
   enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
   exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
   such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
   should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
   practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
   exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
   administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
   accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
   of."

      _Sir F. Pollock,
      Oxford Lectures,
      pages 30-32._

   "In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
   example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
   Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
   example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
   though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
   assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
   Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
   Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
   of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
   from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
   Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
   order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
   the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
   the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
   portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
   smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
   from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
   has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
   positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
   language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
   language of the international law or morality which those
   nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
   philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
   with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
   writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
   source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
   of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
   instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
   mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
   law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
   great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
   technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
   technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
   that system; in their command of its principles; in the
   readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
   certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
   opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
   two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
   permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
   'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
   remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
   the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
   writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
   explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
   deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
   and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
   qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
   And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
   science, all results depend on the possession of leading
   principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
   greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
   of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
   their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
   and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
   intercourse.
{2655}
   Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
   is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
   said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
   ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
   the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
   before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
   all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
   were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
   Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
   distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
   fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
   ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
   a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
   which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
   pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
   the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
   this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
   ('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
   are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
   so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
   to the same end."

      _J. Austin,
      Lectures on Jurisprudence,
      volume 3, pages 358-361._

   "A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
   not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
   origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
   still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
   theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
   strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
   her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
   quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
   the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
   the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
   Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
   in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
   unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
   on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
   requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
   administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
   German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
   the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
   1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
   foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
   Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
   tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
   administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
   vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
   employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
   prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
   Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
   scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
   acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
   present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
   maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
   quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
   in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
   England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
   interests of English liberty to confide the making and
   interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
   jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
   you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
   bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
   civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
   the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
   not decided according to former judgments given in similar
   cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
   speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
   and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
   Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
   completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
   English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
   confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
   judge-made law."

      _E. Reich,
      Graeco-Roman Institutions,
      pages 62-63._

      See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
      and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.

ROMAN LEGION.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

ROMAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.

ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.

ROMAN PEACE.

   The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
   dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
   these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
   throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
   had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
   sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
   with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
   to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
   encomiums it has received."

      _J. Fiske,
      American Political Ideas viewed from the
      Standpoint of Universal History,
      lecture 2._

ROMAN PONTIFICES.

      See AUGURS.

ROMAN PRÆTORS.

      See CONSUL.

ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.

      See PROCONSUL.

ROMAN QUESTION, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

   "Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
   'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
   and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
   protected by the king's peace. These were called
   Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
   Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
   the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
   Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
   Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
   Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
   of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
   a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
   later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
   traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
   other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
   which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
   Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
   Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
   called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
   the road from London to Dover passes is known as
   Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
   Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
   or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
   the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
   became a true Roman road."

      _H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 13._

{2656}

   "In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
   throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
   England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
   time in England four great roads protected by the King's
   Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
   crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
   Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
   These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
   as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
   privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
   not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
   with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
   officers."

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2: The Four Roman Ways._

      See, also, WATLING STREET.

ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.

      See
      ÆMILIAN WAY;
      APPIAN WAY;
      AURELIAN ROAD:
      CASSIAN ROAD;
      POSTUMIAN ROAD;
      and ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ROMAN SENATE.

      See SENATE, ROMAN.

ROMAN VESTALS.

      See VESTAL VIRGINS.

ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

   There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
   in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
   one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
   from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
   feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
   ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
   fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
   to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
   earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
   strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
   called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
   Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
   wild tribes of Caledonia.

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2, page 88-94._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 66-67._

ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.

      See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.

ROMANIA, The Empire of.

   The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
   Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
   the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
   Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
   Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
   of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
   a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
   Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
   taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
   captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
   capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
   all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
   an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
   to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
   sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
   was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
   attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
   the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
   perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
   wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
   accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
   the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
   elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
   death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
   "John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
   empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
   Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
   empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
   France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
   his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
   the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
   example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
   cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
   fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
   length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
   empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
   and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
   appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
   walls of the city."

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 4._

   In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
   his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
   buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
   into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
   whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
      book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 61._

   For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

ROMANS, King of the.

   Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
   emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
   from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
   gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
   the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
   of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
   King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
   Roman Empire in embryo.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of the Germanic Empire,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
   coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
   Emperor taken immediately after the election."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 3, part 1._

ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.

   Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.

   Romanus II., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.

   Romanus III., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.

   Romanus IV., Emperor in the East
   (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.

{2656a}
{2656b}

A Logical Outline of Roman History

IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.

Physical or material. (orange)
Social and political. (green)
Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)

Geographical position. (Orange)

   Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established
   their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the
   Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the
   Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,
   at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and
   energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.

Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)

   The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus
   of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred
   blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with
   them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and
   superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was
   jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received
   into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than
   privileges with it.

   By what impulse of character, or through what favor of
   circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew
   masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But
   as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its
   battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices
   and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a
   struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic
   politics of Rome for more than two centuries.

B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.
B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.

   Before that contest came to the surface of history, the
   oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its
   early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their
   place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely
   aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for
   equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the
   long, significant process of the democratizing of the state
   began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their
   own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected
   by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used
   in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great
   tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly
   wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the
   high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative
   equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with
   the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.

B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.

   But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at
   home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,
   which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,
   Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south
   Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian
   peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed
   intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,
   and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic
   to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no
   rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of
   Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,
   Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern
   Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.

Corruption. (brown)

   But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness
   waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the
   streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents
   into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the
   infection of slavery.

Social and Political Degeneration. (green)

   A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been
   driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the
   small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave
   worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of
   law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the
   common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The
   democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to
   them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise
   it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were
   generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian
   ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the
   exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of
   government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts
   and bribes.

B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.

   Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the
   passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty
   of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as
   demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its
   muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps
   something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what
   they did only shook the decaying political fabric and
   unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the
   Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which
   might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of
   nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,
   and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social
   War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old
   constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,
   Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and
   Cato earned their immortality in its defense.

B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.

   By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial
   autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.
   By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring
   organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire
   which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to
   dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its
   greatness altogether to the effective organization of
   government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions
   and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the
   Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,
   established authority there, and perfected a radiating
   mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been
   known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be
   madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome
   might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,
   and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it
   seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative
   system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty
   and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind
   like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to
   think of any different political state.

Christianity. (brown)

   Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century
   of the Empire, spread through and around it like an
   interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,
   strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But
   when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had
   been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil
   seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the
   Roman world.

A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)

   So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of
   Roman government could no longer bear the increasing
   dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing
   pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in
   the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its
   fall in the West.

A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.

   It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more
   impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued
   centralization of a waning power; and because habit and
   routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western
   world.

A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.

   Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four
   centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it
   restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in
   name.

{2657}

   ----------ROME: Start--------

ROME:
   The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
   The three tribes of original Romans who formed
   the Patrician order.-
   The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.

   "About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,
   hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,
   higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter
   group there has been closely associated for at least two
   thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are
   unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this
   much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to
   us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but
   (by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier
   period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in
   Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an
   expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.
   Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes
   may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only
   dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the
   earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been
   preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the
   amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the
   Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in
   other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which
   Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold
   division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact
   that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,
   regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and
   tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a
   part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'
   early lost its original signification of number. … That the
   Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave
   their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must
   have substantially determined the nationality of the united
   community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be
   affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our
   assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The
   second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one
   consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more
   credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take
   precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding
   Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the
   'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban
   settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and
   Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their
   stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from
   the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),
   which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine
   hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a
   festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any
   other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,
   and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the
   other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these
   settlements the later Rome arose."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a
   confederation of several cities, each one of which was
   attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the
   centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks
   met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the
   fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an
   Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse
   elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were
   numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any
   other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one
   knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome
   was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There
   are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the
   ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman
   families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect
   of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the
   beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It
   could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the
   Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the
   Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several
   quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one
   of these nations."

      _Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 5, chapter 2._

   "The whole history of the world has been determined by the
   geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of
   the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one
   another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site
   marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of
   Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the
   junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had
   the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
   Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
   Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
   Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
   hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
   so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
   those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
   terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
   or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
   more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
   Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
   history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
   was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
   men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
   communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same
   kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a
   few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise
   out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other
   union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into
   being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in
   its effects on all later time with the union of those two
   small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was
   Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.
   the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The
   hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the
   dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of
   Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the
   earth.
{2658}
   Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean
   Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather
   till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three
   hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth
   was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within
   the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any
   precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we
   have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more
   prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a
   thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;
   these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original
   Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but
   themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in
   its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,
   housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only
   could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his
   children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,
   just like slaves, they could be released only by his own
   special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,
   patricians, a name round which such proud associations
   gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole
   Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst
   of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which
   they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The
   incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first
   period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,
   admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level
   with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the
   Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the
   Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now
   formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of
   Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which
   have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it
   must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or
   whole houses to be received into any of the three original
   tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,
   and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of
   non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by
   which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in
   the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which
   takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does
   not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no
   limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus
   the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,
   the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,
   till those who once formed the whole people put on step by
   step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of
   the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this
   time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,
   smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their
   possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly
   by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute
   which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of
   nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original
   people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient
   tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,
   arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is
   a history of incorporation. The first union between the
   Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the
   process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the
   Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that
   union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for
   ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of
   Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt
   that the territory of several neighbouring towns was
   incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,
   whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own
   lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.
   They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any
   other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and
   served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the
   sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had
   no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in
   its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices
   of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had
   their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred
   rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman
   People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman
   history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,
   perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were
   admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed
   among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin
   town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.
   Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families
   which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as
   noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of
   the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more
   part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which
   looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we
   first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second
   nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,
   shut out from all political power, subject in many things to
   practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a
   subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the
   better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation
   to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Practical Bearings of European History
      (Lectures to American Audiences),
      page 278-278, and 285-292._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.

ROME:
   Early character and civilization of the Romans.
   Opposing theories.

   "That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow
   peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian
   dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to
   her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
   has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what
   launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what
   rendered that career so different from those of ordinary
   conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these
   questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a
   peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says
   Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state
   of opinion on this subject. …
{2659}
   But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to
   be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves
   originally formed by the influence of external circumstances
   on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained
   they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not
   indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans
   to the special qualities of their race, we should not be
   solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.
   … What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and
   her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should
   have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their
   having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than
   their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that
   in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and
   not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect
   over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of
   the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when
   Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head
   and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in
   his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army
   will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of
   intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due
   to the primitive inventors of military organization and
   military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of
   comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and
   undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization
   from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of
   collective as they have of individual strength in war; they
   only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the
   prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of
   combining their force by organization, so as to make their
   numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form
   regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the
   word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the
   species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first
   canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so
   far as they relate to war? Their special character is that
   they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.
   Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,
   Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not
   prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and
   disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of
   discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution
   by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory
   against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to
   say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the
   great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came
   military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the
   Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,
   we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the
   plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident
   that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome
   commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and
   country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works
   of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the
   Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca
   Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very
   disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca
   Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,
   of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.
   Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision
   entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive
   the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is
   commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which
   may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history
   in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea
   of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their
   conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the
   Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy
   is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of
   industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents
   her industry and commerce as having been developed
   subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.
   Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population
   and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in
   cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her
   what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a
   meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,
   yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of
   commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians
   were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the
   proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The
   institutions which we find existing in historic times must
   have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of
   patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.
   And these politics, with their parties and sections of
   parties, their shades of political character, the sustained
   interest which they imply in political objects, their various
   devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community
   of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and
   thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the
   quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and
   commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn
   into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military
   spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of
   territories acquired in war, would then become the great
   occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce
   would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the
   members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had
   become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained
   certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and
   aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their
   accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as
   well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial
   exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his
   contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early
   times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to
   study national character, will believe that the Roman
   character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by
   war combined with business."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The Greatness of the Romans
      (Contemporary Review, May, 1878)._

   A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
   early social state of the Romans is presented in the
   following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
   Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
   Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
   is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
   civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
   many channels.
{2660}
   Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
   inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
   country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
   by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
   characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
   earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
   country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
   hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
   of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
   time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
   men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
   settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
   fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
   in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
   intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
   character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a
   fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to
   form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for
   its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of
   the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris
   and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the
   air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may
   be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous
   literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was
   to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of
   repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more
   like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain
   rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers
   for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of
   a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against
   him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there
   was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction
   whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The
   deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and
   power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,
   ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his
   ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple
   lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient
   worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what
   free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised
   without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has
   strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical
   heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong
   poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or
   legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and
   prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of
   Mother Shipton."

      _G. A. Simcox,
      A History of Latin Literature,
      volume 1, introduction._

ROME:
   Struggle with the Etruscans.

      See ETRUSCANS.

ROME: B. C. 753.
   Era of the foundation of the city.

   "Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient
   historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era.
   Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been
   followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius,
   to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher,
   to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro,
   however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted
   by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus
   Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge,
   Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists:
   Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally
   adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr.
   Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy,
   that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."

      _Sir H. Nicolas,
      Chronology of History,
      page 2._

ROME: B. C. 753-510.
   The legendary period of the kings.
   Credibility of the Roman annals.
   Probable Etruscan domination.

   "It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the
   narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to
   the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary
   materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into
   writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the
   arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the
   account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to
   ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the
   burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in
   the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly
   perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was
   probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120
   years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years
   after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that
   these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many
   generations—began to be entered in the registers of the
   pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as
   respects both its external attestation and its internal
   probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,
   indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus
   and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on
   the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and
   poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the
   mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting
   on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are
   real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in
   the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to
   support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of
   his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of
   Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than
   Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa
   Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,
   except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the
   reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on
   the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus
   are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much
   of the history seems to be in the form of legendary
   explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the
   Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of
   their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin
   of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The
   circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named
   Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the
   epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that
   the names were real.
{2661}
   Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely
   representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of
   Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The
   leading feature of the government during this period is that
   its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election
   of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same
   manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were
   appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once
   fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of
   succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,
   whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to
   whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as
   succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The
   predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal
   government was, that the power of the kings was limited by
   constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the
   Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed
   in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by
   the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,
   however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."

      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History,
      chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1)._

   "Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence;
   we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they
   left behind them in the Republican constitution which
   followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied
   by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not
   only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but
   even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we
   have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social
   position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain
   vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined
   magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and
   duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the
   spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but
   we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which
   is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in
   time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has
   ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of
   appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature,
   is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in
   technical terms."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      pages 74-75._

   "The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent
   constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its
   first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings
   once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the
   people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an
   ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content
   with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories
   with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of
   Tarquinius Superbus."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 2._

   The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are
   as follows:
   Romulus, B. C. 753-717;
   Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;
   Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;
   Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;
   Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;
   Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;
   Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.

   According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted
   inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within
   its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws
   and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for
   these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained
   by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he
   arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in
   honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the
   Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their
   wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show,
   the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off
   such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate
   war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women
   concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands
   and satisfied to remain with them.

      _Livy,
      History,
      chapter 9._

   "We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover
   some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he
   supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of
   intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on
   the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the
   Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal
   hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage
   was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies
   at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a
   method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful
   utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the
   customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the
   pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 2._

   "With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a
   marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the
   last three kings not only wear a more historical air than
   those of the first four, but they describe something like a
   transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of
   these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first
   time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The
   low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately
   laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the
   massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
   Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves
   with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a
   powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and
   Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to
   kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in
   the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with
   the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a
   sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic
   Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
   and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult
   to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this
   phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during
   this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.
   Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the
   Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of
   discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability
   will the answer be found until the lost key to their language
   has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic
   tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is
   certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north
   or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves
   masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who
   dwelt there.
{2662}
   Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as
   far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to
   subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they
   made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by
   sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power
   encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition
   of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come
   from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else
   than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is
   therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a
   proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan
   lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in
   wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of
   remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant
   that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward
   splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive
   simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are
   represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a
   commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city
   itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the
   authors of important internal changes. They are represented as
   favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician
   families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,
   a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Newman,
      Regal Rome._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of the Kings of Rome._

ROME: B. C. 510.
   Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud.
   The story from Livy.

   Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of
   Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought
   about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne.
   "Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had
   not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to
   his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him
   Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by
   him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had
   about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he
   knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this
   end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were
   so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him
   to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he
   banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the
   number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means
   (for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being
   rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any
   into their place, thinking that the people would lightly
   esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call
   them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his
   own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or
   unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while
   he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with
   Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter
   in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in
   all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a
   city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the
   spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of
   gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter
   on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only
   of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that
   should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud.
   … By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there
   was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name
   Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing
   that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how
   the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State
   (and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged
   it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him
   which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he
   feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a
   prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the
   Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion
   should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a
   little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what
   manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous
   a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the
   woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own
   hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and
   her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil
   house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat
   silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she
   slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping
   with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling
   the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword
   and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud,
   with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will
   suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And
   when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form
   of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought
   only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been
   done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered
   with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things
   happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a
   thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age
   for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them
   stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one
   should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest
   Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome.
   There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the
   people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the
   young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours
   with which the King wore them out in the building of temples
   and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time
   past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now
   come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also
   he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been
   slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the
   dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the
   people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there
   should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with
   his wife and his children should be banished.
{2663}
   After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the
   army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled
   from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As
   for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates
   shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that
   is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but
   Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own,
   was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being
   thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus
   for his colleague."

      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy;
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 8-9 (volume 1)._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of the Kings of Rome,
      chapter 10._

ROME: B. C. 509.
   The establishment of the Republic.
   The Valerian Laws.

   "However much the history of the expulsion of the last
   Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with
   anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its
   leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power
   was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when
   a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was
   nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by
   two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or
   judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules
   are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The
   collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently
   most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in
   their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was
   not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each
   consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and
   wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king;
   and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place
   from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the
   command of the army, and the other the administration of
   justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of
   the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time
   in the province of the other.

      See CONSUL, ROMAN.

   … This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution
   of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of
   the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally
   undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in
   reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They
   ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term,
   but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their
   office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the
   term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their
   official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier
   times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral
   responsibility."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if
   the mass of the people is not led on by some superior
   intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority
   the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which
   in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less
   military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged
   the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting
   to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found,
   at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may,
   during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the
   head of the state, probably from less pure motives than
   Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement
   which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius
   Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of
   events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation
   made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms
   founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls.
   The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of
   transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we
   may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the
   constitution was effected in a similar way. In important
   historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the
   absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar
   objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial
   constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must
   renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to
   me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the
   kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is
   represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much
   more."-

      _W. Ihne,
      Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
      page 61._

   "The republic seems to have been first regularly established
   by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover
   little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest
   traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius
   was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius
   Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of
   his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the
   election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a
   suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take
   sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power.
   But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office
   with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended
   to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the
   danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The
   first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the
   gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should
   dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of
   Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life
   of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should
   be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people.
   This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      CONSUL, ROMAN;
      COMITIA CURIATA;
      COMITIA CENTURIATA;
      CENSORS;
      QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;
      SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 494-492.
   The first secession of the Plebs.
   Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.
   Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.
   The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.

   "The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]
   opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how
   the internal history is affected by the wars without. The
   debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the
   field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen
   army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician
   families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the
   Valerii.
{2664}
   Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the
   distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his
   campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation
   of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius
   Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a
   proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of
   the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh
   of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the
   gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a
   station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to
   go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At
   last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:
   they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.
   This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …
   The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had
   done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history
   of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which
   would one day spring up into the imperial government of the
   Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were
   clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important
   element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of
   the consuls."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 3._

   "The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from
   all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could
   hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally
   nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who
   possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any
   sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the
   people had no military force at his disposal with which to
   inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the
   high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people,
   than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise
   functions specially directed against the governing class. … To
   strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in
   physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the
   terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed
   under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared
   to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever
   attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their
   functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be
   killed by anyone without fear of punishment."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8._

   "The tribune had no political authority. Not being a
   magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries
   [see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no
   proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the
   beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in
   common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician
   city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was
   not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the
   plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in
   Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized,
   having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude,
   which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its
   inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years
   we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected
   powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the
   people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the
   senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later
   they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians;
   they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of
   the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other
   power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the
   day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever
   touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing
   shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune
   convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could
   dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune
   placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the
   tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire.
   If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his
   hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against
   a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As
   soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait
   long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in
   any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in
   their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not
   religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The
   assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not
   appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of
   an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It
   was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of
   the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True,
   these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the
   general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and
   passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of
   their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried
   plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double
   series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians,
   plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the
   senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were
   two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of
   each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost
   nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city,
   nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not
   enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly
   of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even
   understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. …
   The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body
   politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own.
   The duality of the Roman population became from day to day
   more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie
   between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were
   careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left
   to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate
   them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the
   inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of
   Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should
   never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs
   were under control; there was no longer a double power; in
   presence of the enemy Rome became one."

      _N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 4, chapter 7._

{2665}

   It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in
   number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law
   which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under
   the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for
   the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These
   aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their
   jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were
   settled by fines."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Roman Republic
      (abridged by Bryant and Hendy),
      chapter 7._

   "Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two
   plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the
   patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple
   (Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between
   the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the
   plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already
   a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is
   to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of
   ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings
   in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of
   police-officers."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 3._

   The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were
   elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C.
   These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office
   was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91
   B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had
   certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian
   ædiles a board of police and market administration, having
   oversight also of the religious games.

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      Appendix A._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir G. C. Lewis,
      Credibility of Early Roman History,
      chapter 12, part 1._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 16._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 493.
   League with the Latins.

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

ROME: B. C. 489-450.
   Volscian Wars.

   The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians
   stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450)
   and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The
   legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name
   was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian
   town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern
   critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it
   only a beautiful romance.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapter 7. _

ROME: B. C. 472-471.-
   The Publilian Law of Volero.
   Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.

   "Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C.
   472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was
   provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be
   elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the
   Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in
   the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of
   Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting
   off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people
   was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia
   tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as
   factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and
   functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The
   circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the
   Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the
   attempt was made by the patricians to change the original
   character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to
   the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the
   assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of
   making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a
   contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the
   comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the
   Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia
   tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now
   admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of
   meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian
   comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their
   representatives, the right of discussing and settling their
   own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions
   [plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These
   resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they
   had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still
   they were the formal expression of the will of a great
   majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not
   easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on History of Rome,
      lecture 20._

ROME: B. C. 466-463.
   The Plague.

   In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were
   so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and
   cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the
   Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and
   beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable
   that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out
   in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time.
   The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence,
   and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the
   disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth
   part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all
   classes."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 11._

ROME: B. C. 458.
   Conquest of the Æqui.

   "Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci
   are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour
   down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening
   Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of
   these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with
   Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the
   Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the
   mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very
   characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the
   danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed
   upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber,
   when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is
   made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough,
   conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."

      _R. F. Horton.
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapter 9._

{2666}

ROME: B. C. 456.
   The Icilian Law.
   The early process of legislation illustrated.
   Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.

   "The process of legislation in early times has been preserved
   to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the
   account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is
   that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an
   interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

   This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a
   brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems
   unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should
   have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a
   record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once
   restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief
   prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the
   proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says
   Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and
   the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree
   for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the
   people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled
   them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate
   on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys.
   X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was
   passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the
   consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under
   which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation,
   and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state
   acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The
   formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus.
   The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early
   times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a
   strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign
   assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly
   can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul.
   If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse
   to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp.
   Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not
   think of doing so save on the recommendation of their
   authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely
   dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in
   their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate
   treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their
   veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as
   a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is
   the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these
   means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the
   whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have
   the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new
   tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of
   the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs
   itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again
   introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may
   bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public
   business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who
   have the power of secession in their hands. In practice,
   however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield
   before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their
   yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the
   plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its
   acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the
   part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is
   still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the
   question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance
   in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is
   disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam
   senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting
   on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and
   expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the
   vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the
   consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to
   the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia
   centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly
   threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation
   in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is
   recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to
   assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the
   recommendation of the senate."

      _J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

   On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted
   Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 451-449.
   The Terentilian Law.
   The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.

   Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the
   plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the
   exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,
   and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This
   could only be done by writing them down and making them
   public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the
   tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to
   appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing
   the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the
   patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which
   would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The
   contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,
   according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means
   of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were
   made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After
   a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was
   passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,
   being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be
   appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into
   a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be
   suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government
   and administration of the commonwealth during the time that
   they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian
   magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and
   the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with
   unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in
   good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …
   Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of
   their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it
   insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with
   wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their
   legislation, met with universal approval. They published on
   ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these
   laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were
   declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the
   first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the
   traditional story is simple and intelligible."
{2667}
   The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by
   modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs
   were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius
   Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom
   he could control, and then established a reign of terror which
   surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate
   when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects
   itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of
   its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered
   themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of
   laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 9 and 10._

   "The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all
   law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost
   reverence. But only fragments remain."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 11._

    "The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the
    world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement
    to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law
    consistently employed language which implied that the body of
    their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and
    therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one
    particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables
    were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman
    jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of
    English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief
    reasons why the development of their system differed from the
    development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with
    the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost
    importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of
    which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a
    sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds
    were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not
    widely distant from one another. They appeared under
    exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our
    knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on
    the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all
    made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere,
    not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but
    similar in point of the relative progress of each community.
    Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on
    tablets and published to the people take the place of usages
    deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. …
    The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the
    discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true
    that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of
    legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession
    of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of
    those popular movements which began to be universal in the
    western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have
    added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the
    main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed
    tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a
    better security for its accurate preservation, than the
    memory of a number of persons however strengthened by
    habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the
    Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies
    which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded
    against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also
    against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the
    national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an
    enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman
    people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in
    civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was
    published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged
    from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation
    and religious duty are inevitably confounded."

      _H. S. Maine,
      Ancient Law,
      chapter 1._

ROME: B. C. 449.
   The Valerio-Horatian Laws.

   On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B.
   C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being
   elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws,
   known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law
   (the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal
   from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made
   the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes,
   authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 10._

   See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of
   these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and
   Hortensian laws.

      See, ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 445-400.
   The Canuleian Law.
   Creation of the Consular Tribunes.
   Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.

   "The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their
   privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people,
   and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are
   meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to
   commence another to gain political equality. … Two things
   maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders:
   the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians,
   and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who
   formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the
   'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the
   abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his
   colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for
   political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages
   between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a
   third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The
   plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for
   the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the
   consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and
   the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively
   patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality
   proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the
   legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two
   orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed
   number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all
   patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In
   spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up
   the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the
   patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The
   constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of
   plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none
   obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this
   office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated
   consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year
   in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government.
{2668}
   These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of
   a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the
   Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet
   liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the
   poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was
   not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and
   raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office,
   prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a
   cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the
   tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought
   protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled
   the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed
   to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of
   the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act
   of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be
   demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus,
   sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius.
   Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at
   that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have
   been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged.
   Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the
   military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian
   candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him
   the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of
   Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can
   be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of
   concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular
   hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following
   the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There
   was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus
   Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months.
   These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that
   the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of
   discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though
   conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator.
   To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the
   tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to
   prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the
   majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this
   day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and
   few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new
   advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing
   the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white
   robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the
   patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue
   canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of
   penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing
   the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia
   centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they
   revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should
   be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of
   domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They
   miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise
   the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented
   to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible
   to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands
   of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian
   families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414
   to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians.
   A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it,
   was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard
   of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular
   cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years
   the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician
   reaction produced another against it which ended in the
   thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An
   Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the
   agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three
   of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace
   to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410
   three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was
   established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the
   larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes
   out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus
   obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and
   the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families
   while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all
   desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to
   Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external
   foes."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      volume 1, pages 231-239._

ROME: B. C. 406-396.
   The Veientine wars.
   Proposed removal to Veii.

   "Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams
   which meet a little below the city and run down into the
   Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the
   ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little
   streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are
   edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of
   affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land
   above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of
   Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the
   walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In
   the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is
   said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and
   we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render
   this not impossible."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

   "Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in
   periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had
   come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted
   for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a
   captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not
   the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus,
   the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and
   fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took
   up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and
   how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this
   and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic,
   and a beautiful epic."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 4._

{2669}

   At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that
   half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city,
   and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A
   little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens,
   having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge,
   were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their
   former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to
   history.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapters 13 and 15._

ROME: B. C. 390-347.
   Invasions by the Gauls.
   Destruction of the city.

   "Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a
   great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri].
   Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the
   Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of
   time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael
   who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by
   Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new
   homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that
   large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after
   this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the
   fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair
   land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one
   swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties
   of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne;
   Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian
   Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who
   have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena
   Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich
   plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which
   lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except
   Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia
   Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way
   before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no
   more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines
   into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that
   country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The
   common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took
   this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and
   therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been
   thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their
   king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king."
   The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little
   stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and
   were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and
   found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators,
   sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew,
   because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard
   by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had
   withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære.
   After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to
   the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to
   overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they
   retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or
   weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans
   cherished many legends connected with the siege of the
   Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the
   sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B.
   C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into
   Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of
   Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For
   four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of
   them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B.
   C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the
   Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept
   Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured
   southwards, and disappear from history."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 4._

      _A. J. Church,
      Stories from Livy,
      chapters 13-14._

ROME: B. C. 376-367.
   The Licinian Laws.

   "C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the
   Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three
   bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian
   Rogations. These were:

   I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum
   of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal,
   and the remainder paid off in three successive years.

   II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly
   320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public
   pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of
   smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.

   III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should
   always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a
   Plebeian."

   The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of
   these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which
   long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed
   by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their
   formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular
   demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations
   became Laws.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

   "Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of
   the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but
   seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order
   from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius
   was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the
   time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The
   plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having
   the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that
   they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a
   demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper
   the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the
   creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would
   have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the
   discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they
   carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls
   without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians
   continued severed from one another, the patricians drew
   together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth
   demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors
   their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,
   from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his
   measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred
   but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly
   opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other
   hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the
   plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,
   Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with
   a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians
   the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.
{2670}
   "It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the
   consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and
   Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have
   been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and
   upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the
   consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally
   violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of
   relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,
   were violated from the first. No general recovery of the
   public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera
   ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of
   land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and
   jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to
   embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of
   land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager
   privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards
   convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts
   met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment
   and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon
   reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or
   installment of principal could effectually remove. … These
   laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question
   or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the
   evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians
   into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do
   was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.
   Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor
   on]y."

      _A. Stephenson,
      Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _S. Eliot,
      The Liberty of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 366.
   Institution of the Prætorship.

   "By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office
   of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the
   consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the
   colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as
   the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the
   same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors
   and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling
   the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees.
   … Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was
   annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the
   jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction
   was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was
   always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign
   prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the
   two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two
   new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular
   government of those provinces, and still later on two more
   were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of
   annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until
   the legislation of Sulla."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 5._

      See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 343-290.
   The Samnite Wars.

   When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy,
   and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the
   question which of the two peoples should be masters of the
   peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the
   middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two
   rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans
   were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought
   three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of
   which the Samnite name had been practically erased from
   history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between
   the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen
   of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans,
   and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them
   in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First
   Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no
   definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end
   rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble
   between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman
   annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one
   on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other
   historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed
   down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an
   interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had
   conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from
   confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were
   quite ready to measure swords again with their more important
   rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war
   which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304).
   In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and
   the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too
   hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them
   and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy
   one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history
   ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two
   consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C.
   321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to
   surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and
   other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with
   Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their
   armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the
   Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those
   who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to
   receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment
   of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and,
   although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the
   final result of the war which they were forced to resume was
   disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate
   fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them
   of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to
   acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased
   lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C.
   298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on
   their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations.
   Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295),
   won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied
   Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his
   colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same
   name.]

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

{2671}

   The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer
   and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader,
   Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison
   under the Capitoline.

      _J. Michelet,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 6._

ROME: B. C. 340.
   The Publilian Laws.

   "In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian
   Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his
   Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and
   carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining
   privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law
   enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must
   be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the
   principle already established, that the Resolutions of the
   Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third
   provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries
   or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the
   Curies."

      _G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1)._

   See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the
   preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian
   laws.

      ROME: B. C. 286.

ROME: B. C. 339-338.
   Subjugation of the Latins.
   Grant of pseudo-citizenship.
   The real concession of the next century and its effects.

   A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors,
   the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and
   other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a
   century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493,
   according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the
   league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting
   successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the
   Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the
   greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their
   arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost
   all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to
   win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak
   after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be
   admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government
   of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly
   refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples
   ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was
   fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have
   owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian
   consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted
   himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and
   then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain.
   The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some
   with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus,
   isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome,
   the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became
   gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old
   Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by
   means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in
   the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say,
   they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their
   laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said
   in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded
   by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled
   with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain
   what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the
   right of Roman citizenship without including in the political
   privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of
   marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not
   counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived
   the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This
   title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it
   had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is
   this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this
   pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed,
   and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily
   discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of
   the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and
   without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from
   them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with
   this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different
   cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their
   magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door
   which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman
   city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in
   his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the
   expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this
   right was complete and without reserve; suffrage,
   magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were
   included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor,
   wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to
   obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it.
   One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found
   that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily,
   Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population
   increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But
   the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became
   Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from
   which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more
   and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had
   to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill
   up."

      _N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
      The Ancient City,
      book 5, chapter 2._

ROME: B. C. 326-304?
   Abolition of personal slavery for debt.

      See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.

ROME: B. C. 312.
   The censorship of Appius Claudius.
   His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.
   The building of the Appian Way.

   "Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …
   was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,
   with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of
   filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate
   since the last nominations to that body by the preceding
   Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from
   certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices
   or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the
   beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or
   for that of his faction, through any support he could command,
   now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,
   amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as
   such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,
   much less to be worthy of any political advancement.
{2672}
   The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than
   in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius
   Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,
   was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the
   Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and
   those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still
   keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the
   Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of
   the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At
   this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the
   Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as
   promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was
   not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large
   portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way
   [Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our
   day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as
   to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an
   author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius
   Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the
   partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to
   lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was
   employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private
   secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and
   an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual
   concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of
   instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these
   subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of
   the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal
   proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what
   day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,
   they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial
   tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to
   copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much
   less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.
   … But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether
   he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the
   manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a
   desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which
   ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his
   discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to
   various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the
   Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his
   disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …
   The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in
   the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius
   Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius
   Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the
   Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."

      _S. Eliot,
      The Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

ROME: B. C. 300.
   The Ogulnian Law.

   In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in
   the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party
   against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes.
   Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their
   adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in
   the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician
   leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians
   upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the
   Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new
   incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added,
   thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by
   the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to
   its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the
   priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened
   to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has
   done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate
   from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did
   not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance
   between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was
   rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to
   the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."

      _S. Eliot,
      Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2). _

ROME: B. C. 295-191.
   Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.

   Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side
   of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again
   entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the
   Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with
   Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,
   under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the
   vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at
   Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at
   one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but
   in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and
   inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They
   also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to
   negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of
   Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race
   was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were
   established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the
   Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic
   territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake
   and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty
   years, during which time the Romans were strengthening
   themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at
   Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick
   settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the
   Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards
   across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic
   coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being
   prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort
   to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were
   beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of
   Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost
   totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely
   subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were
   likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,
   and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,
   except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued
   and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal
   independence as allies of Rome.
{2673}
   But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,
   interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic
   country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the
   Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony
   of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the
   inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,
   but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of
   Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The
   war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears
   to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the
   Cisalpine Gauls.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapters 12-13;
      book 4. chapter 5;
      book 5, chapter 7._

ROME: B. C. 286.
   The last Secession of the Plebs.
   The Hortensian Laws.

   "About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of
   Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had
   lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped
   in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last
   Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded
   in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several
   laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably
   an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven
   but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer
   citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that
   which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting
   that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole
   Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law
   passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the
   Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator,
   after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his
   Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered
   ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the
   People."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

   "It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs
   advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private
   corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign
   populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to
   legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and
   qualifications, long before they were invested with this
   absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to
   the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the
   plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is
   the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449],
   the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the
   dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340].
   Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words
   which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some
   modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty
   by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and
   Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and
   Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to
   the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view
   appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally
   refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere
   re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their
   authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and
   Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the
   consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the
   patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia
   curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is
   to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius
   Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He
   believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the
   'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere
   blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.'
   … But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a
   foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I
   believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative
   power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the
   known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of
   the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with
   sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German
   historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the
   law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the
   power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de
   facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any
   petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and
   empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate;
   perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right
   of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the
   senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in
   such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its
   vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed
   the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported
   by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to
   be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of
   sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the
   senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture
   that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening
   senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the
   petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi
   Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would
   be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring
   legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which
   formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would
   thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power,
   if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was
   placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of
   Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the
   law of Publilius Philo."

      _J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
      The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome
      (English Historical Review, April, 1886)._

   "With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle
   between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician
   gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the
   patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices
   of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law
   equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of
   people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In
   private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians
   were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the
   children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige
   attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part
   played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and
   by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers
   and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.
{2674}
   Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second
   struggle between patricians and plebeians was an
   impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been
   expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory
   of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for
   its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,
   the history of the republic might have been different. As it
   was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,
   assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to
   play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians
   and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly
   plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at
   the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise
   of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the
   magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one
   hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in
   the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the
   first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the
   people a reality, it was already too late."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 2, chapter 1._

ROME: B. C. 282-275.
   War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.

   The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was
   completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to
   the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of
   which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in
   Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman
   aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the
   supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic
   party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid,
   and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the
   adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from
   the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the
   autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and
   Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a
   powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed
   foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants.
   The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It
   was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian
   phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the
   huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory,
   but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at
   once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms
   with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat
   upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come
   of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as
   ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army
   over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with
   the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of
   the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege,
   to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his
   success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in
   Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years,
   had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of
   Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and
   Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his
   army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was
   ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a
   tile which a woman flung down upon his head.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

   In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of
   Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over
   under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the
   Adriatic side of the same promontory.

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 36-37 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapters 14-17._

ROME: B. C. 275.
   Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.
   Differing relations of the subject communities to the
   sovereign state.
   Roman citizenship as variously qualified.

   "For the first time Italy was united into one state under the
   sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges
   the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various
   other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping,
   or in other words, what conception of political power is to be
   associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere
   expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably
   belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding
   treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could
   declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with
   it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every
   war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people
   were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and
   the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all
   Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the
   leading community extended no further. But to these rights
   there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty
   that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which
   the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in
   detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition
   to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different
   classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise
   itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was
   possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban
   commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was
   the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far
   into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other,
   but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum,
   a great number of communities more or less remote were
   gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it
   completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably
   extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere,
   eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond,
   Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term
   'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within
   this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had
   not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as
   Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman
   farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either
   altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the
   subject communities the most privileged and most important
   class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few
   of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these,
   with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether
   insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained
   accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous
   communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the
   Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing
   in consequence of new settlements of the same nature.
{2675}
   These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin
   rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman
   rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom
   the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought.
   … The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the
   contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which
   from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and
   parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language
   and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of
   language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants
   of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean
   on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning
   upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as
   compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization
   with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded
   private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of
   inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only
   on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public
   magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently
   from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. …
   The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman
   burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far
   inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise
   without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas
   sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman
   burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally
   autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to
   all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and
   taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as
   their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its
   honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice
   administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by
   the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing
   revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a
   'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor
   was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other
   respects these communities retained their own administration,
   and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. …
   Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were
   subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as
   each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of
   these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the
   Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and
   Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while
   others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably
   approximated to despotism. … The central administration at
   Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its
   supervision and control over the mass of the Italian
   communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of
   the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the
   Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities.
   The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate
   duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired
   domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they
   were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and
   district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the
   necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and
   the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military
   administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the
   south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and
   the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name
   common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati),
   which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that
   of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use
   among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As
   the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in
   law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named
   in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it
   is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played
   an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for
   centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of
   the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in
   the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for
   instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was
   transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga.
   The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by
   Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far
   as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as
   far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus
   become a political unity; it was also in the course of
   becoming a national unity."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ROME: B. C. 264-241.
   The first Punic War.
   Conquest of Sicily.

   "The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a
   time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the
   Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws
   had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer
   citizens had received besides what may be called a large
   dividend in money out of the lands which the state had
   conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state
   domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money
   with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No
   wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our
   'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and
   the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the
   senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily
   upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity
   which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to
   that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion
   of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of
   the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      pages 538-540._

   "The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to
   Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,
   destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the
   Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and
   blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,
   driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that
   'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an
   Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'
   264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made
   to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the
   military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,
   taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the
   defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).
{2676}
   The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana
   deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already
   jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the
   Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers
   and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus
   dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their
   purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well
   succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which
   no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the
   fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans
   in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival
   power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the
   recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian
   influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with
   traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and
   plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus
   began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without
   intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole
   period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this
   war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).
   Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with
   great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,
   256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea
   until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the
   Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon
   Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they
   should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten
   years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon
   overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage
   rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not
   maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the
   Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine
   Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the
   Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its
   mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take
   possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200
   talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,
   measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian
   power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under
   Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and
   consolidations of the territories in Spain."

      _W. B. Boyce,
      Introduction to the Study of History,
      period 4, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Polybius,
      Histories,
      book 1._

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage,
      chapters 4-7._

      _A. J. Church,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 4, chapters 1-3._

      See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ROME: B. C. 218-211.
   The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy.
   Cannæ.

   "Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic
   War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the
   Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of
   Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On
   the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain
   under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage
   ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal,
   the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general
   that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between
   Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of
   Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in
   218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land.
   This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history.
   Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with
   Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four
   battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C.
   216."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Outlines of History
      (or General Sketch of European History),
      chapter 3._

   "The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which
   runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven
   back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman
   army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius
   Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river
   of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold
   morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the
   water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and
   driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under
   Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next
   year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south
   towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,
   Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was
   fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty
   day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were
   surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely
   beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans
   were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius
   Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with
   Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did
   little things against him when he could; so he was called
   'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of
   waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for
   Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was
   always danger that the other Italians would join him against
   Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to
   get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice
   as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.
   They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all
   their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they
   had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the
   loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,
   that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.
   Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman
   colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was
   not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,
   but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities
   that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger
   army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent
   an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was
   busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops
   to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they
   were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know
   anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for
   more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he
   ought not to want any more troops.
{2677}
   At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he
   could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be
   careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year
   they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town
   that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211
   the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough
   to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of
   falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned
   themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined
   Hannibal began to leave him again."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapters 11-39._

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 43-47._

      See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 214-146.
   The Macedonian Wars.
   Conquest of Greece.

      See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.

ROME: B. C. 211.
   The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.

   In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when
   fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua,
   his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans
   and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and
   citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon
   Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not
   with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the
   Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had
   felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the
   walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome,
   guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit
   one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer
   of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his
   purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible
   presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of
   romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen
   touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear
   into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via
   Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought
   refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio,
   within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of
   feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at
   the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the
   Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm
   composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the
   battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a
   cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on
   him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such
   was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price
   even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn
   never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine
   country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked,
   Capua unrelieved."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 44._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Hannibal,
      chapter 34._

ROME: B. C. 211-202.
   The Second Punic War:
   Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.
   The war in Africa.
   The end at Zama.
   Acquisition of Spain.

   "The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war.
   Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to
   retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining
   everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose
   confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to
   the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in
   Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain
   possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium,
   attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In
   the following year the Romans recovered several places in
   Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long
   military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209).
   The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered
   and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year
   Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was
   surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten
   years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were
   increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the
   news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared
   expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in
   Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to
   meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased
   from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were
   incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the
   Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven
   years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius
   Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of
   spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced
   northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence,
   after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march
   to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The
   expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold
   resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with
   their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was
   waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a
   rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their
   united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome.
   Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and
   1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew
   nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague
   Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival
   might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he
   heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the
   increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls
   were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been
   defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait
   for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and
   down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the
   Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an
   unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops
   exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung
   in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great
   general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into
   the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned
   to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He
   announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by
   casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending
   two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the
   disastrous battle.
{2678}
   'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he
   recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided
   the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the
   towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium,
   where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous
   country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the
   dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre
   of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that
   expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the
   beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from
   Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously
   elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in
   this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate
   finally consented that he should cross from his province of
   Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an
   expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the
   year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his
   preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort
   to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent
   to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to
   renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under
   Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which
   followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of
   importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio
   had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from
   Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory
   near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was
   compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory.
   Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his
   advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of
   Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This
   enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards
   Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to
   Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and
   compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the
   Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion
   could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations
   for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to
   recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to
   bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon
   preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman
   senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at
   Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the
   armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors
   from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and
   Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of
   Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of
   the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but
   imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river
   Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202.
   Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans
   fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but
   his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered
   unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the
   three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio
   arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a
   ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass
   without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long
   struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."

      _R. F. Leighton,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 23-24._

   "Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his
   heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered
   were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised
   what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed
   to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their
   own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to
   give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their
   elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were
   not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without
   the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise
   Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the
   prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and
   annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their
   hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were
   to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean
   and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of
   which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus
   shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within
   a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution!
   Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only,
   and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the
   peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most
   cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the
   destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet.
   Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician
   race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the
   colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of
   Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were
   deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars,
      chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 31-34._

      See, also.
      PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

ROME: B. C. 2d Century.
   Greek influences.

      See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ROME: B. C. 191.
   War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.
   First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the
   king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.

ROME: B. C. 189-139.
   Wars with the Lusitanians.

      See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.

ROME: B. C. 184-149.
   The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.

   "The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease
   and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue
   from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed
   tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal
   domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became
   public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was
   found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property
   tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year
   after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of
   wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of
   expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means
   for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding
   their way into the city from the East.
{2679}
   Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music
   for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;
   and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and
   extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was
   financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in
   malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in
   regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of
   misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less
   reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in
   the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to
   plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary
   to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of
   malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to
   restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.
   In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of
   slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal
   ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'
   limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in
   spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex
   Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in
   161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in
   143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though
   such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,
   they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;
   for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as
   indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be
   unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing
   influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years
   the education of the young, once regarded as the special
   business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of
   Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek
   culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their
   party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This
   tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary
   taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the
   most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a
   return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."

      _E. S. Shuckburgh,
      History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
      chapter 32._

ROME: B. C. 159-133.
   Decline of the Republic.
   Social and economic causes.
   The growing system of Slavery and its effects.
   Monopoly of land by capitalists.
   Extinction of small cultivators.
   Rapid decrease of citizens.

   "In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate
   oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already
   cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with
   fatal results. According to their party names, which were
   first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to
   give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that
   of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that
   day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining
   community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both
   were equally affected by political corruption, and both were
   in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically
   and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards
   its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman
   revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political
   conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which
   the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to
   take their course"; and which had brought about "the
   depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the
   petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in
   Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing
   tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of
   cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the
   replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy
   by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this
   second great conflict between labour and capital, it is
   necessary to give here some indication of the nature and
   extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with
   the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which
   the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or,
   if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the
   slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the
   system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state,
   as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of
   capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary
   transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of
   slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was,
   just like that of America, based on the methodically
   prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of
   game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in
   Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor
   free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the
   Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan
   and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and
   slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek
   islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman
   revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states
   and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves.
   … At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers
   of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators,
   on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been
   disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before
   evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself,
   its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the
   law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by
   slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The
   levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was
   regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that
   leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining,
   making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early
   the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The
   tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But
   far worse in every respect was the plantation system
   proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not
   unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their
   legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during
   the day, and were locked up together by night in the common,
   frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation
   system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to
   have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. …
{2680}
   The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in
   this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be
   fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is
   very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman
   slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we
   are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves
   themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman
   state. …

      See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

   The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or
   indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields
   without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to
   employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former
   could not like the latter be called away to military service;
   and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of
   misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian
   grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value
   over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a
   mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census
   yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there
   appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154]
   stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in
   623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an
   alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and
   abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the
   burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves;
   and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the
   Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was
   the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state
   entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye
   turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could
   not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man,
   whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or
   amendment."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 10-12._

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 1-2._

ROME: B. C. 151-146.
   The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.

   "Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was
   placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia,
   who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But
   it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every
   symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at
   Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of
   Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to
   check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure
   while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim
   satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the
   increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing
   raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour,
   Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by
   some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome
   with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the
   news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was
   actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in
   the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the
   opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and
   others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction
   of their city itself was demanded from the despairing
   Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw,
   was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began.
   During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147
   P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus,
   conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the
   conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only
   a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the
   command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was
   taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman
   province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons
   of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman
   suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the
   raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century
   from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the
   former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct
   rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as
   Roman provinces."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

ROME: B. C. 146.
   Supremacy of the Senate.

   "At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then
   of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme
   power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how
   this period of conflict and conquest had affected the
   victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but
   little change. It continued to be in form a moderate
   democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established
   by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by
   the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were
   elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the
   people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman
   citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the
   senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But
   between the theory and the practice of the constitution there
   was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually
   sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind
   the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and
   enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom
   had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the
   senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,
   was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.
   It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the
   time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and
   successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the
   constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the
   commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with
   the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival
   disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost
   unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and
   by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic
   policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the
   ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that
   without it the government of the state could scarcely have
   been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the
   close and intimate connection which existed between the senate
   and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin
   widely different from the old patriciate.
{2681}
   Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of
   the families which in this period styled themselves noble were
   not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time
   of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,
   Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was
   apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one
   or more of whose members had, after the opening of the
   magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in
   consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to
   display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these
   distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a
   curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be
   the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …
   Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and
   prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to
   secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The
   ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form
   a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …
   The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only
   result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same
   time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and
   with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 3, chapter 3._

   "The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all
   but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere
   consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate
   had become the supreme executive body. That the government
   solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience
   be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome
   was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new
   organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the
   Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it
   possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism
   thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing
   de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government
   after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being,
   strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any
   demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration
   before an Assembly which was without continuity, without
   special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if
   the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at
   all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the
   constant struggle between the two sources of authority."

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 2. _

      See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.

ROME: B. C. 133-121.
   The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.

   "The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is
   connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and
   its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a
   danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which
   of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome
   had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while
   her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes
   abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of
   Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of
   accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste
   their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace
   returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of
   prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed
   ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to
   compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea,
   and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of
   the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the
   eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their
   holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,
   oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the
   rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was
   not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt
   in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly
   settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and
   in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to
   demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its
   existence the government had received plenty of warning in the
   declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census,
   in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions,
   in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 4, chapter 1._

   The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung
   from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see
   ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to
   prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the
   public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which
   the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession
   of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,
   to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this
   condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder
   of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in
   133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the
   people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended
   to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by
   taking away from the holders of public land what they held in
   excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three
   commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to
   superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the
   land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal
   of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class
   whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the
   fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition
   and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote
   upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had
   recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune
   was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the
   law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and
   for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election
   to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against
   positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the
   day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his
   party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years
   later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election
   to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic
   political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in
   attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers
   and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were
   schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the
   Roman people and state.
{2682}
   He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it
   was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and
   stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After
   three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,
   too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the
   patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great
   number of his supporters.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19._

   "Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who
   appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer
   citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of
   grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate
   below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have
   acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped
   to secure the city from seditious movements in time of
   scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it
   would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated
   citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would
   create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power
   it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues.
   Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of
   luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he
   decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who
   had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their
   pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of
   the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised
   distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public
   granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful
   labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself,
   it is said, directed the course and superintended the making
   of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing
   Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up
   depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the
   country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry.
   Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement
   at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his
   proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were
   filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended
   from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers,
   ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to
   all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to
   the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared,
   the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and
   tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of
   popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon
   the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure
   intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner
   of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the
   wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law,
   for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the
   magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the
   powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont
   to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were
   crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no
   recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious
   appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a
   complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even
   more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to
   the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of
   the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the
   judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves
   senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If
   the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected
   that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would
   be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of
   their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater
   purity from the second order of citizens than from the first.
   If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the
   knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a
   grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this
   was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the
   two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one
   another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the
   profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of
   an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class
   of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners
   and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a
   strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles
   and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this
   attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should
   touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by
   their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this
   was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct
   advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides
   the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this
   elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful
   co-operation towards the important object he next had in view:
   this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and
   Italians to the right of suffrage."

      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Tiberius Gracchus;
      Caius Gracchus._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3)._

      _S. Eliot,
      Liberty of Rome: Rome,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.

ROME: B. C. 125-121.
   Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.
   Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.

      See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.

ROME: B. C. 118-99.
   Increasing corruption of government.
   The Jugurthine War.
   Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.
   The power of Marius.

   "After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they
   pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian
   Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles
   cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own
   pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign
   kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could
   pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place
   in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest
   state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend
   of the Roman people, and had fought with them against
   Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the
   Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of
   Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an
   adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the
   kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and
   made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.

      See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

{2683}

   The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to
   please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in
   Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to
   death (112). After this the Romans thought they must
   interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let
   Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself
   before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian
   prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But
   his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared
   war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for
   three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108,
   a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus,
   went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have
   finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by
   Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low
   birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery,
   and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the
   army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common
   soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked
   with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and
   went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault
   with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry
   on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and
   more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa
   instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and
   brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was
   over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the
   leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army.
   The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The
   Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their
   country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as
   wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant
   countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was
   full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius
   was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade
   himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state.
   Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign
   that the government for the future was to be carried on by the
   army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon
   wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians
   from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and
   threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy.
   They came with their wives and children, like a wandering
   people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated
   the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had
   conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province,
   which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans,
   after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their
   city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for
   the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the
   year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy,
   but Marius defeated them in two great battles.

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

   Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so
   powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state.
   The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very
   fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But
   Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought
   much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a
   still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the
   people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus,
   brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and
   Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and
   the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the
   riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he
   armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now
   neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did
   only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for
   the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the
   troubles of the Roman state."

      _M. Creighton.
      History of Rome (Primer).
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 54-56 (volume 2)._

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 39-41 (volume 2)._

      _Plutarch,
      Marius._

ROME: B. C. 90-88.
   Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.
   The Marsian or Social War.
   Rise of Sulla.

   "It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that
   the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms,
   and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will.
   Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it
   is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they
   were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the
   Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the
   honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which
   they had become allies was not always the same. It differed
   widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an
   equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which
   implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance
   of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome
   neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin
   colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been
   satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the
   right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian
   communities proved an illusion in all cases where the
   interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law
   passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a
   magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole
   of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws,
   though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the
   Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman
   senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as
   roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the
   benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of
   war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the
   hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the
   increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure
   and independent of the allies, they showed them less
   consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had
   gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no
   more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the
   Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things,
   especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to
   extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was
   strongly pressed.
{2684}
   In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus,
   there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus,
   who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by
   giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to
   their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he
   provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their
   claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians,
   Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a
   league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to
   Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The
   prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war
   which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was
   also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social
   War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman
   citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt
   of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was
   taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle
   fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many
   defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the
   first year of the war they had made no headway against the
   revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians
   that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her
   downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as
   in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of
   selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the
   Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar,
   was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the
   Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so
   far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes
   carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which
   offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two
   months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to
   claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and
   the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the
   field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola
   (where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of
   Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important
   battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain
   of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that,
   for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the
   revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than
   the death throes of a lost cause.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note,
      and book 7, chapters 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 15-16._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 83-84 (volume 2)._

ROME: B. C. 88-78.
   Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.
   War with Mithridates.
   Civil war.
   Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.
   Sulla's dictatorship.

   The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying
   made quick progress in the generation that passed between the
   murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble
   which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled
   actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the
   populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the
   increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and
   subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob
   violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was
   dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any
   longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a
   natural consequence of that state of things that the two
   foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius
   Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the
   recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day.
   Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed
   six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime
   of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing
   capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a
   plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came
   from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the
   dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and
   philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely
   ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition
   and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war
   with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command
   in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the
   year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct
   of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with
   the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a
   turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could
   claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against
   Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid
   his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most
   part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had
   no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob.
   Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to
   the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the
   last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own
   armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla
   paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn
   the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans
   fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of
   whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to
   Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which
   there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his
   colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his
   consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the
   war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that
   he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted
   his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome,
   of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of
   Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one
   of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the
   head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as
   they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had
   been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came
   back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other
   leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four
   armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful
   resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the
   Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to
   authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was
   implacable in his sullen rage.
{2685}
   Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private
   enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves
   Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at
   last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was
   forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins
   and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree
   of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a
   city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition
   for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first
   month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the
   war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from
   afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no
   sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years
   after his departure from Italy and three years after the death
   of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts
   with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was
   joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important
   chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and
   young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There
   was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young
   Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was
   another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of
   Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants
   fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his
   suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last
   orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he
   pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be
   posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom
   anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number
   doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the
   death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror
   ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to
   take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect
   him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They
   obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman
   constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his
   command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made
   them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great
   part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate
   to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune
   to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate,
   adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to
   it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to
   the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in
   legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his
   liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly
   laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private
   life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There
   he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself
   up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than
   the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he
   died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 17-29._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapters 15-23._

      _Plutarch,
      Marius and Sulla._

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapters 9-10._

      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapters 4-5._

ROME: B. C. 80.
   The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic
   by Ptolemy Alexander.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

ROME: B. C. 78-68.
   Danger from the legionaries.
   Rising power of Pompeius.
   Attempt of Lepidus.
   Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.
   Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.
   The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.

   "The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,
   and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and
   Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced
   by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.
   He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities
   and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he
   was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if
   need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna
   and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …
   The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of
   patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of
   their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed
   an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the
   legions only that they could trust, and the legions were
   notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla
   had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius
   Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.
   These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger
   Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices
   they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian
   faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured
   the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla
   had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in
   years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but
   when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the
   people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the
   dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a
   triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he
   was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the
   greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be
   known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now
   fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the
   heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The
   election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of
   the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the
   ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's
   oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But
   there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to
   seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed
   with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the
   career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated
   his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of
   his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the
   senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls
   by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the
   remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;
   but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in
   Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the
   Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,
   and invoked the aid of
   the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands
   of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.
{2686}
   With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the
   Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the
   remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to
   rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now
   thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the
   veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and
   farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies
   met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the
   city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again
   repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there
   perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus
   into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was
   carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the
   forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."
   Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and
   aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a
   prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and
   assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

   "Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic
   at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost
   through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs.
   Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him
   another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A
   body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at
   Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had
   seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a
   retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …

      See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.

   The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them,
   but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of
   Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was
   the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power.
   This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired
   more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of
   Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the
   forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents,
   who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under
   his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of
   Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by
   lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the
   extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a
   remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his
   assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it
   was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate
   attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both
   Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now
   become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with
   which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus
   was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some
   alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty
   it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another
   leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of
   another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western
   provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius
   Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the
   struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates.
   … The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the
   choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all
   the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge
   with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under
   Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the
   brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was
   despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand
   the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was
   well defended by its position among the mountains and the
   length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to
   strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but
   well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes
   surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of
   undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of
   17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made
   but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and
   broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon
   the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless
   confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly
   precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following
   year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. …
   But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own
   soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of
   Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of
   the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful
   assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving
   the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile
   the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at
   Rome."

      _C. Merivale,
      The Roman Triumvirates,
      chapter 1._

   Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and
   afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this
   perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had
   been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both
   of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first
   refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the
   second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day
   regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him
   who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in
   short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns
   which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They
   obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change
   the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even
   before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered
   Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely
   with the pirates."

      _J. Michelet,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      page 308._

   "It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as
   conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was
   awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been
   despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their
   arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius
   Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own
   troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the
   command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."

      _E. S. Shuckburgh,
      History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
      page 677._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Pompeius Magnus._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 30-33,
      and volume 3, chapters 1-5._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

{2687}

ROME: B. C. 69-63.
   The drift towards revolution.
   Pompeius in the East.
   His extraordinary commission.
   His enlargement of the Roman dominions.
   His power.
   Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.
   Consulship of Cicero.

   "To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C.,
   it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given
   a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years
   this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and
   68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our
   authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a
   single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or
   even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of
   some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the
   government might have been carried on fairly well even under
   republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a
   character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and
   there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate
   or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair
   damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the
   next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of
   revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one,
   or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of
   world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be
   perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during
   these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of
   government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was
   elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the
   following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with
   government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began
   his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his
   return to Rome, which must have taken place about the
   beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer
   connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was
   to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by
   this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his
   friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was
   real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest
   soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater
   than ever.

      See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

   Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and
   was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with
   the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In
   this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune,
   Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition
   in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power
   against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was
   really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and
   completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years
   over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the
   provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in
   every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole
   Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the
   existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited
   means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate
   his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals),
   who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for
   it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan
   which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia
   Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In
   fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and
   his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither
   of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the
   requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only
   be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. …
   Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared
   the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded
   Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with
   the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and
   extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not
   return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might
   seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and
   left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power
   and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success
   with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to
   the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He
   put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the
   submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman
   dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these
   kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time
   reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into
   contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor
   became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the
   interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain.
   Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and
   added Judæa to Syria. …

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].

   The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading
   figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of
   conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he
   chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central
   government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state
   like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of
   an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid
   work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of
   plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted
   government on the other. … He was elected to the
   curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series
   of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B.
   C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is
   by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and
   watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not
   have been much in common between them, and they were in fact
   rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender,
   however, must have been in the main responsible for the
   enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and
   the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on
   the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an
   agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune
   Servilius Rullus.
{2688}
   The two most startling features of this were: first, the
   creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each
   member of which was to be invested with military and judicial
   powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly,
   the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial
   resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the
   territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C.,
   together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of
   Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge
   scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan
   agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak
   fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its
   garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the
   democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new
   Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also
   have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the
   hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come
   into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in
   doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's
   great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so
   far for the most part used them, had made him already a
   considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to
   which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very
   first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and
   exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy
   was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and
   to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. …
   Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference,
   that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of
   conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and
   the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and
   only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the
   spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became
   vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once
   took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour
   were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would
   place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. …
   He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one
   of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election
   stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance
   against candidates like the venerable conservative leader
   Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius
   Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which
   placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law
   framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be
   repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The
   useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was
   passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large
   majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was
   occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic
   party to possess themselves of the state power while there was
   yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy
   of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the
   senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy
   took no open or active part in it."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapters 4-5._

      ALSO IN
      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 10._

      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius,
      sections 7-13._

      _C. Middleton,
      Life of Cicero,
      section 2._

ROME: B. C. 63.
   The conspiracy of Catiline.

   The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of
   Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its
   prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great
   speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied
   the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was
   consul that year, and the official responsibility of the
   government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were
   a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to
   gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all
   the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and
   disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to
   be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and
   Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the
   dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the
   plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and
   won the support of the people to his proceedings against the
   conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed
   himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had
   raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the
   single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were
   hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the
   Tullianum.

      _W. Forsyth,
      Life of Cicero,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Trollope,
      Life of c,
      chapter 9._

      _A. J. Church,
      Roman Life in the Days of Cicero,
      chapter 7._

     _Cicero,
     Orations
     (translated by (J. D. Yonge),
     volume 2._

ROME: B. C. 63-58.
   Increasing disorders in the capital.
   The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.
   His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.
   The First Triumvirate.
   Cæsar's consulship.
   His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.
   Exile of Cicero.

   "Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both
   the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough
   to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third
   party—no class remaining out of which a government might be
   erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a
   single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain;
   though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only
   man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered
   itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds
   was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by
   fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the
   autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the
   capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected
   tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the
   command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the
   consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their
   hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself
   elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him.
   But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident
   that they had come to a cordial understanding with the
   general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the
   democratic view of the illegal executions [of the
   Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to
   call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been
   embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to
   transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On
   the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their
   veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it.
{2689}
   There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which
   terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up
   the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their
   offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of
   Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension
   against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it.
   Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of
   Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions
   of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against
   Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two
   palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the
   inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the
   party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage
   was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the
   winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush
   the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid
   pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62
   B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army,
   proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the
   city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete
   isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the
   aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once
   demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of
   all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he
   had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each
   of these demands was met with the most determined opposition.
   … His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified,
   but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the
   necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position,
   Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who
   saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the
   democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had
   grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in
   62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he
   utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to
   lay the foundation of the military position he desired for
   himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his
   claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to
   stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the
   aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature
   of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the
   consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured
   to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of
   his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped
   for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years
   before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian
   class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; …
   but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was
   glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was
   struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in
   Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised
   the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the
   ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his
   soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the
   capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money
   they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes.
   … Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the
   exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an
   aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once
   proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing
   an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which
   meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up
   to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased
   out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers
   were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the
   principle of giving rewards of land for military service was
   not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to
   a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were
   passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and
   the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their
   head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the
   first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the
   rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was
   determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested
   by decree of the people with a special command resembling that
   lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius
   submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted.
   By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and
   the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for
   five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His
   jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and
   included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo
   was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar
   had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in
   the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …

      See JULIAN LAWS.

   The regents determined to make examples of some of the most
   determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent
   into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was
   appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out
   of the way, to Cyprus.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of the Roman Republic,
      (abridged by Bryan and Hendy),
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapters 17-20._

      _C. Middleton,
      Life of Cicero,
      section 4_.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Julius Cæsar,
      chapters 3-4._

ROME: B. C. 58-51.
   Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ROME: B. C. 57-52.
   Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.
   Return of Cicero from exile.
   New arrangements of the Triumvirs.
   Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.
   The Trebonian Law.
   Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.
   Increasing anarchy in the city.

   "In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his
   victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the
   unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the
   gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters
   of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the
   magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at
   Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the
   efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until
   the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P.
   Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite
   of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all
   the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and
   ratify the senatus consultum.
{2690}
   The return of the great orator to the country which he had
   saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph
   than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come
   back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. …
   Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the
   beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar,
   and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the
   triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend
   Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the
   action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an
   independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a
   humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third
   campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the
   Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the
   rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very
   independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was
   agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint
   consulship again next year, and before the expiration of
   Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for
   another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other
   speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men
   by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and
   pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus."
   In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave
   to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and
   Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this
   repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the
   coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican
   institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of
   seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes
   and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion
   by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins
   of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon
   and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus,
   acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the
   fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat,
   shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the
   blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river
   Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site
   of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a
   defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few
   days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a
   conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces
   invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman
   world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus,
   retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians
   in the following year, that agile people remained to the last
   unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance
   further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius,
   though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year,
   was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar,
   since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had
   broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the
   condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at
   which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have
   to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls
   could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected
   until July, and the year closed without any elections having
   taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate
   for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the
   prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial
   arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting
   in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a
   despairing government should invest him with dictatorial
   power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to
   seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word
   dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the
   4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his
   colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."

      _R. F. Horton,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 29._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Forsyth,
      Life of Cicero,
      chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2)._

      _C. Merivale,
      The Roman Triumvirates,
      chapter 5._

      _G. Rawlinson,
      The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 11._

ROME: B. C. 55-54.
   Cæsar's invasions of Britain.

      See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

ROME: B. C. 52-50.
   Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.
   Approach of the crisis.
   Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.

   "Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as
   had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear
   of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been
   killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself
   the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other;
   and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing
   for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey
   had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till
   lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to
   put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had
   entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals,
   and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself
   apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his
   exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his
   soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great
   actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge
   comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those
   advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself
   and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who
   were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without
   any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay,
   did not contend for their benefactors with their bare
   suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after
   having many times stained the place of election with the blood
   of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last
   without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship
   without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom
   could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy
   disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy.
   Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was
   incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that
   remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning
   Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet
   in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator.
{2691}
   Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make
   him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more
   legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the
   dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of
   his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he
   governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him,
   at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public
   treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the
   consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at
   first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed
   it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything,
   whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him.
   For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the
   people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately
   planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered
   one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped
   [B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify
   he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back
   again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship,
   Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the
   riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the
   tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500
   talents, with which he built the noble court of justice
   adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the
   Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly
   took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a
   successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back
   the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in
   Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of
   250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey,
   spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of
   Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions
   that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs
   here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and
   the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his
   command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently
   declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless
   expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy.
   Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike
   preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which
   Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he
   proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the
   same, and both together should become private men, and each
   expect a reward of his services from the public. For that
   those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to
   confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply
   establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the
   other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the
   people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some
   threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do
   successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being
   tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion,
   and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose
   it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the
   Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a
   time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it
   to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers,
   and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented
   to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony
   proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions,
   all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very
   violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had
   need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that
   the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in
   mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension.
   Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed
   yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else,
   and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two
   legions, till he should stand a second time for consul.
   Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia,
   endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who
   was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him
   the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's
   friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only,
   and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give
   way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to
   it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with
   insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the
   most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could
   readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two
   persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to
   escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they
   were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome.
   There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50]
   above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army,
   which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by
   officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he
   thought the first motion towards the design which he had on
   foot did not require large forces at present, and that what
   was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to
   astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he
   commanded his captains and other officers to go only with
   their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make
   themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as
   little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the
   care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day
   in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who
   exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his
   person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some
   time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to
   grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to
   the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having
   already given private directions to a few immediate friends,
   that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some
   one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired
   carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently
   turned towards Ariminum."

      _Plutarch,
      Cæsar
      (Clough's Dryden's translation)_

      ALSO IN
      _Cæsar,
      Commentaries on the Civil War,
      book 1, chapters 1-8._

      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

{2692}

ROME: B. C. 50-49.
   Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.
   Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.
   Cæsar at the capital.

   "About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from
   Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the
   stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the
   drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and
   evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the
   union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the
   summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of
   the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might
   present a barrier more worthy of the important position which
   it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long
   been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a
   bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused
   themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the
   founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the
   brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of
   November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C.
   49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before
   he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies
   of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes
   no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment
   of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in
   the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or
   for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 14._

   After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more,
   messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting
   the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon
   his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing.
   Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of
   his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc
   Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies
   three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he
   was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably
   conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of
   Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar
   regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret
   their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey
   and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to
   Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this
   retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at
   Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand
   in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement,
   and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers
   whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to
   carry with them money which he believes to have been taken
   from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the
   soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return
   to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar
   follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to
   beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil
   and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He
   knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in
   Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily,
   Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there
   are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better
   for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of
   Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his
   attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part
   of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar
   is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and
   his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and
   Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair
   land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy
   and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is
   provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the
   force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be
   starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the
   corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are
   left free for the use of the city."

      _A. Trollope,
      The Commentaries of Cæsar,
      chapter 9._

   Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take
   possession of the seat of government which his enemies had
   abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being
   a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city
   in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such
   of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded
   to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to
   various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the
   appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults
   of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be
   used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion
   which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of
   Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that
   fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this
   occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make
   haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to
   secure the submission of all the west before he followed
   Pompeius into the Eastern world.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN
      J_. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 21._

ROME: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
   His conquest of Massilia.

   In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded
   by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had
   already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three
   legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and
   the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he
   found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was
   confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at
   Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris
   (modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five
   legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries
   to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the
   reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.
   The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the
   passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and
   drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,
   had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and
   was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed
   his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure
   strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the
   hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its
   retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish
   campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was
   decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest
   of Cæsar's military achievements.
{2693}
   The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still
   nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although
   surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to
   range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to
   close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his
   campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions
   of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet
   to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.
   Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the
   general of the land force. The siege was made notable by
   remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the
   courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar
   returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to
   surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act
   of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he
   spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and
   antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were
   offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon
   afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 1, chapters 36-81,
      and book 2, chapters 1-22._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 5 and 8._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 15-16._

ROME: B. C. 48.
   The war in Epirus and Thessaly.
   Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.

   Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and
   having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the
   Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the
   year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius
   and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar
   then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to
   take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the
   calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The
   vessels at his command were so few that he could transport
   only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was
   with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of
   Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies,
   and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was
   caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed.
   Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the
   second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium,
   under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him
   until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small
   force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront
   Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he
   marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering
   troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of
   some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who
   pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him.
   As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with
   all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his
   untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly
   fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at
   a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge
   him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of
   his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in
   length. It was an undertaking too great for his force.
   Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all
   his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was
   placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief
   shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the
   cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and
   his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar
   framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his
   lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior
   of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which
   he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then
   coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow
   him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at
   last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to
   confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his
   antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable
   battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia,
   through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which,
   from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of
   Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48
   before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The
   foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least
   as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the
   latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the
   young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which
   to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his
   sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks.
   The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying.
   Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to
   Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the
   other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like
   Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master,
   from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still
   to be fought.

      _Cæsar,
      The Civil War,
      book 3._

      ALSO IN
      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapter 16._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 10-17._

      _T. A. Dodge,
      Cæsar,
      chapters 31-35._

ROME: B. C. 48-47.
   Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.
   His assassination.
   Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.
   The rising against him.
   His peril.
   His deliverance.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

ROME: B. C. 47-46.
   Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.
   His return to Rome.
   The last stand or his opponents in Africa.
   Their defeat at Thapsus.

   At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at
   Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain
   as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending
   civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,
   Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his
   father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had
   been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the
   small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the
   moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser
   Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,
   marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated
   at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.
{2694}
   As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,
   could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely
   needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia
   Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army
   was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy
   throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at
   Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory
   over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to
   have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says
   that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the
   name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three
   words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's
   triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."

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

   After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar
   passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia
   proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the
   faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47]
   with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for
   the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and
   arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach.
   If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was
   making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium
   he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a
   year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with
   him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by
   Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired
   to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged
   doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of
   Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition
   ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and
   bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in
   an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working
   hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he
   was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or
   power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute
   monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself.
   Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited,
   magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was
   no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must
   wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious
   mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned,
   with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature;
   sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at
   Lilybæum in the middle of December."

      _W. W. Fowler,
      Julius Cæsar,
      chapter 17._

   The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial
   party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was
   made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the
   city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the
   Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his
   ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was
   joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other
   leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert
   from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite
   from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them,
   they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the
   end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at
   Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for
   Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military
   adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by
   storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they
   arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a
   position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon
   as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and
   found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them
   at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he
   attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of
   Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers,
   cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their
   ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy,
   while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive
   battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46,
   uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later.
   Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the
   voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato
   committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom
   to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself
   in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a
   Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still
   disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.

      _A. Hirtius,
      The African War._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapters 24-27._

ROME: B. C. 45:
   Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
   His victory at Munda.

   After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle
   to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus
   Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of
   the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in
   Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in
   command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt,
   crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary
   celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought,
   the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the
   Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the
   17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great
   conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he
   won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived
   among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were
   30,000.

      _Julius Cæsar,
      Commentary on the Spanish War._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 19._

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 30._

ROME: B. C. 45-44.
   The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.
   His permanent Imperatorship.
   His unfulfilled projects.

   "At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings
   of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days
   of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the
   pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. …
   After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was
   a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of
   Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a
   college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On
   the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome,
   but he did not triumph till the beginning of October.
{2695}
   This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the
   victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no
   longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now
   the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be
   enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having
   suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and
   Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that
   tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear.
   But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach
   to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he
   replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius,
   who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who
   had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had
   betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he
   forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the
   magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. …
   Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he
   centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own
   hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar
   used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the
   Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid
   aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included
   absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and
   the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate,
   retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely
   from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of
   præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was
   offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the
   Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by
   offering him the right of appointment in all curule and
   plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege
   of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the
   members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they
   would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these
   having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the
   legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure
   it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the
   whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the
   reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate,
   at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat,
   dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy
   was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not
   yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went
   as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His
   title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were
   transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar
   was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such
   servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his
   enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man
   who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character
   of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of
   consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The
   Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave
   soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a
   considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia
   Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services
   to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. …
   One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus
   Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his
   honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch.
   This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not
   deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from
   honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor
   Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of
   having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience
   is for an able government more convenient than outward
   servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil
   possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it
   is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These
   pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and
   Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which
   should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins.
   Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he
   desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe
   that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power
   as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was
   carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of
   his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who
   were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In
   order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still
   higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It
   was meet that he should wipe out the second military
   humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should
   avenge Crassus."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3)._

   "Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after
   honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with
   himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his
   past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he
   resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had
   subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along
   by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus,
   till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries
   bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return
   through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of
   his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the
   ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he
   proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands;
   and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a
   design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep
   channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea
   near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage
   for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he
   intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and
   gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of
   men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on
   the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in
   upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden
   rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form
   ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels
   that would frequent them. These things were designed without
   being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar
   [See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity
   of time, was not only projected with great scientific
   ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of
   very great use."

      _Plutarch,
      Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation)._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 11, with note._

{2696}

ROME: B. C. 44.
   The Assassination of Cæsar.

   "The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had
   been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates.
   Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain
   all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech,
   individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar,
   whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at
   their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a
   guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's
   master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul,
   was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a
   person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to
   deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the
   immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of
   the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his
   acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They
   were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the
   fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and
   submission that they might take an easier road to rid
   themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of
   their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded
   themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in
   their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so
   they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man
   only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a
   reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without
   absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus
   Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and
   a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son
   was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms.
   Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of
   such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and
   although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken
   the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not
   pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he
   had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. …
   Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in
   whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and
   Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the
   conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once
   wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause
   which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them
   were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others
   worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been
   partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's
   side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that
   to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to
   reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to
   set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going,
   as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus
   Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony,
   Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy.
   Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as
   soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign
   appointments were all made for five years, and in another week
   the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if
   action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate
   had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The
   Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the
   question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The
   occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a
   convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper
   the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret,
   was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly
   arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the
   secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act
   were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be
   easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple;
   but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or
   whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with
   him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. …
   Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the
   assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in
   good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony
   in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about
   Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so
   could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in
   the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen
   difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in
   after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. …
   Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw
   him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In
   the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again
   unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder
   affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his
   body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression.
   He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend
   the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were
   in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in
   to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not
   coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already
   suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be
   discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the
   coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus
   Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to
   entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and
   rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and
   shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard
   whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a
   stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read
   it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with
   a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition
   and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of
   the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken.
   … Cæsar entered and took his seat.
{2697}
   His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the
   conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should
   lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of
   access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell
   him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had
   just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with
   some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught
   his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his
   shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in
   the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm.
   Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He
   looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a
   ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his
   head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall
   decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The
   Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the
   Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead,
   and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who
   had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into
   concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds
   which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed,
   crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and
   the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where
   a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to
   his country that every senator would die before harm should
   reach him."

      _J. A. Froude,
      Cæsar,
      chapter 26._

ROME: B. C. 44.
   The genius and character of Cæsar.
   His rank among great men.

   "Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie
   once observed, that if that question were left to be collected
   from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered
   throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be
   found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against
   any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that
   even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries,
   the same verdict would have been returned, had it been
   collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he
   should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival
   voices had pronounced the second."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars,
      chapter 1._

   "The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With
   such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he
   should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at
   least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself
   enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had
   the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier,
   whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His
   ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which
   required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his
   Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern
   offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon
   crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the
   root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable
   him to trample down the respect for legality which still
   hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to
   me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of
   what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the
   empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the
   gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table,
   the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and
   noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we
   desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's
   time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential
   difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate
   and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply
   into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the
   republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his
   dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted,
   not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even
   cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his
   clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern
   clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of
   it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged
   them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici
   morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his
   life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the
   incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman
   conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of
   Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold
   into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the
   verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who
   had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would
   have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a
   captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day
   of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then
   undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the
   incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at
   the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world
   of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had
   lived and acted for another century, what could he have done
   with those moral and political materials but found, what he
   did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of
   projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must
   remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with
   feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are
   really great, such as the codification of the law, and
   measures for the encouragement of intellect and science;
   others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial
   cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works
   to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money,
   are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar
   was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all
   men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when
   society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new
   system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making
   the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring
   the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions,
   descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time
   were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of
   the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were
   Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture
   to think will in time subside."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      The Last Republicans of Rome
      (Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Arnold,
      History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _A. Trollope,
      Life of Cicero,
      volume 2, chapter 8._

{2698}

ROME: B. C. 44.
   After Cæsar's death.
   Flight of "the Liberators."
   Mark Antony in power.-
   Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.

   The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome
   gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a
   simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum
   and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an
   harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he
   made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights
   of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few
   senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the
   number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their
   place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the
   following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by
   speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure,
   and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned
   with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving
   consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M.
   Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with
   vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken
   possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had
   acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding,
   moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who
   controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really
   commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had
   been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city,
   and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage
   in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold
   attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony
   listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul,
   to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act.
   At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a
   decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of
   Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and
   unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the
   recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among
   the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces.
   Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and
   their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his
   possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover
   of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's
   papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and
   was accused of forging without limit where the genuine
   documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of
   the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral
   decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which
   infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators"
   in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened
   the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for
   him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of
   his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm
   indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he
   harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended
   and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of
   Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator
   had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three
   hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen
   of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was
   Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister,
   Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will,
   his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius
   Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen
   years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of
   a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With
   wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined
   proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his
   rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling
   the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from
   Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and
   reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By
   great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own
   account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and
   thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor,
   against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important
   rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the
   possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second
   Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty
   which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 23-24._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 34._

ROME: B. C. 44-42.
   Destruction of the Liberators.
   Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.
   The Second Triumvirate.

   Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of
   Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all
   Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of
   Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to
   Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to
   those several commands before they slew him. But Antony
   succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,
   transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.
   A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving
   Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of
   Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration
   and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.
   An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his
   plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his
   position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the
   people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to
   advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or
   commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by
   virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of
   several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus
   refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported
   by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it
   from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,
   although two legions brought from Epirus went over to
   Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched
   into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina
   (modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had
   taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had
   declared its hostility to Antony.
{2699}
   Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his
   army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a
   public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two
   battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum
   Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of
   Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome
   the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps
   and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.
   Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a
   military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and
   quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been
   refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was
   elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next
   business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as
   against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was
   arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.
   C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),
   constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate
   —to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a
   formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of
   government between themselves; named officials for the
   subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of
   all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of
   enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of
   300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000
   knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been
   done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the
   self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these
   turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and
   Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.
   Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army
   and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42
   B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the
   triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed
   soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met
   at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an
   interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was
   finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the
   estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable
   conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on
   either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand
   legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps
   120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at
   Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.
   There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from
   Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great
   Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little
   half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize
   him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,
   too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.
   C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus
   reigned in Africa.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 24-28._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      The Fall of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 15._

ROME: B. C. 31.
   The victory of Octavius at Actium.
   The rise of the Empire.

   The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world
   to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought
   in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made
   Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now
   fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C.
   31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome,
   Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily
   consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence,
   the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony,
   oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in
   dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of
   hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion
   to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been
   summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a
   question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make
   room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after
   Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of
   war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a
   revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at
   Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement
   in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at
   last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on
   that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished
   by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the
   marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace
   was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and
   animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter.
   It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the
   superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held
   at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for
   the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was
   by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a
   naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the
   sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and
   attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the
   Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great
   battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or
   "acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of
   Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the
   Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of
   Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and
   the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army,
   on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its
   arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius
   pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had
   other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he
   was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The
   date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by
   historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and
   the commencement of the Roman monarchy."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28._

{2700}

ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
   The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,
   Octavius, called Augustus.
   His organization of government.

   "Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the
   Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of
   many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional
   forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was
   no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and
   hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by
   the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our
   fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels
   of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is
   little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time
   discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is
   even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid
   before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the
   helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if
   ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more
   probable that he was content with some faint show of
   resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head,
   as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years'
   interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But
   we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to
   avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the
   same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its
   character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the
   populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine,
   clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would
   induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he
   had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and
   this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the
   imperial office.

      See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

   Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name
   which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet
   vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long
   association with the objects of religion. …

      See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.

   With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic
   power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which,
   though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly
   corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority.
   The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him
   with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected
   the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The
   Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested
   with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual
   holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The
   'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator
   of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position
   safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with
   the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and
   the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was
   content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the
   feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure
   of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always
   added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these
   titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled
   occasionally and for short periods most of the republican
   offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country
   towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its
   august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of
   censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be
   set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy
   members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and
   its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular
   power was vested in him without local limitations. … The
   offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the
   Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little
   seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors,
   Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and
   moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they
   had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control.
   … They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms
   of popular election were still for a time observed. … The
   consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed
   rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger
   number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months
   only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as
   little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. …
   But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of
   more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus,
   the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the
   deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute
   some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants,
   named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties
   which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect
   of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to
   represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need,
   when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he
   could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle
   mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the
   post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere
   of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date.
   The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the
   Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his
   reign. …

      See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

   Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the
   watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a
   protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn
   supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care
   on the part of the imperial government. … The title
   'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of
   'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was
   used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called
   were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's
   property or managers of his private business. … The agents of
   the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called
   by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more
   repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the
   imperial government. We have next to see what was the position
   of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to
   restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger
   he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy
   members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The
   functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But
   the substance of power and independence had passed away from
   it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in
   the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the
   trusted advisers of the Emperor. …
{2701}
   If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces
   we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more
   sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to
   the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,
   which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,
   called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called
   'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held
   office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are
   signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that
   the transference of a country to this class from the other was
   looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such
   in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was
   his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative
   work his claims to greatness must be based."

      _W. W. Capes,
      Roman History: The Early Empire,
      chapter 1._

   "The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the
   moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the
   republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised
   the authority of the man, who was already by common consent
   'master of all things'; and this it effected without any
   formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation
   of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional
   machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement
   avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers
   voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B.
   C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the
   tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision
   was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his
   death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the
   powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each
   of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and
   provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its
   birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time
   being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open
   question whether any other citizen should be invested with the
   powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be
   chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to
   answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were,
   strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the
   senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity
   required that some one must always be selected to fill the
   position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as
   kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military
   ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate,
   determined the selection; and that usage decided that the
   powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the
   main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman
   emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and
   people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for
   special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not
   inherit a great office by an established law of succession;
   and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king
   never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman
   'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts
   made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character,
   none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and
   dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history
   of the empire."

      _H. F. Pelham,
      Outlines of Roman History,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 3._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4)._

ROME: B. C. 16-15
   Conquest of Rhætia.

      See RHÆTIA.

ROME: B. C. 12-9.
   Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
   Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

ROME: A. D. 14-16.
   Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

ROME: A. D. 14-37.
   Reign of Tiberius.
   Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.
   Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
   His death.
   The Delatores and their victims.
   Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.
   The Prætorians quartered at Rome.

   Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was
   brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last
   marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero
   (divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,
   Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,
   first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister
   Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus
   soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of
   the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore
   three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom
   died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two
   daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his
   own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted
   son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first
   husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that
   Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths
   which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,
   Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of
   the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in
   dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to
   appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to
   lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with
   this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so
   admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined
   accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat
   him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end
   Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to
   oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene
   forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his
   reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia
   and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the
   insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's
   nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.
   C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in
   reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign
   of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,
   is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is
   celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of
   Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser
   [see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that
   the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies
   against tribes which had no fortified towns. …
{2702}
   The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more
   and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an
   only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,
   the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must
   have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was
   the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he
   was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German
   wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his
   legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he
   remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly
   could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,
   because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore
   mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious
   legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers
   and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the
   same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,
   whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon
   which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign
   of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator
   had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
   been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been
   committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its
   undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of
   offences might be made to come within the reach of the law
   concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the
   senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in
   motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under
   Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these
   prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a
   numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their
   business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."

      See DELATION.—DELATORS).

   This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom
   he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After
   her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got
   the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily
   more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of
   his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a
   man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest
   resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the
   office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number
   of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to
   concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum
   praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the
   wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city.
   The consequences of this measure render it one of the most
   important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now
   became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to
   that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they
   determined the fate of the empire until the reign of
   Diocletian. …

      See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.

   The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day,
   and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with
   sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While
   Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at
   Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now
   instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the
   time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the
   fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of
   Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he
   himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out
   of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was
   Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but
   only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. …
   Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the
   name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest
   kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio'
   if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch.
   Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape
   Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody
   believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on
   which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated
   in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus
   Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the
   age of 78."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lectures 111-112 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 1-6._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 42-46 (volume 5)._

ROME: A. D. 37-41.
   Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.

   Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula,
   to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a
   great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from
   "Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers,
   and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured
   the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of
   the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he
   had long been the object of expectation and desire to the
   greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known
   him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their
   affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and
   compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. …
   Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint
   acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the
   senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left
   his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole
   government and administration of affairs was placed in his
   hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that,
   in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are
   said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this
   extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was
   added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula
   himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of
   popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the
   government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus,
   but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a
   full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He
   made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but
   conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse
   every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and
   dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the
   people their ancient right of voting in the choice of
   magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of
   300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the
   senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and
   children. …
{2703}
   He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of
   various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes
   by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He
   likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from
   morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild
   beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a
   prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a
   monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the
   diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to
   regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of
   kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine
   majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were
   famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them,
   among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from
   Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own.
   Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and
   the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of
   vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the
   twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by
   all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter
   Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with
   choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most
   opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates
   for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it
   successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked
   in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to
   him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to
   be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the
   obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the
   fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with
   his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an
   his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in
   repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater
   infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne
   the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by
   his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to
   attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch,
   sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he
   had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to
   send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days
   pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. …
   When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his
   wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that
   criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon
   inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the
   portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he
   ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate'
   [a proverbial expression, meaning, without
   distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many
   persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with
   hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in
   repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or
   tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts
   carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them
   asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution
   of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his
   victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and
   frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and
   constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' …
   Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the
   Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish
   the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain
   aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered
   remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some
   terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence,
   conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his
   diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity,
   both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons
   were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was
   dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of
   beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of
   prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never
   had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person,
   or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters …
   there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not
   make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part
   in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into
   Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few
   Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in
   concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be
   brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with
   great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately
   threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian
   knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from
   the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by
   torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with
   timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make
   war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the
   ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no
   one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden
   commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their
   helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them
   'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.'
   As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was
   crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the
   falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want
   of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours'
   rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."

      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula
      (translated by A. Thomson)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 47-48 (volume 5)._

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
      volume 2._

ROME: A. D. 41.
   The murder of Caligula.
   Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.
   Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.

   "If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was
   due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his
   assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a
   private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to
   indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the
   caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his
   personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure,
   neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the
   guards who watched over his safety.
{2704}
   Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian
   cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of
   his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even
   when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would
   insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe
   out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and
   organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles
   a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the
   Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into
   effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded
   by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but
   still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of
   January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's
   debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants,
   however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows;
   and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led
   from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble
   youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage.
   … Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when
   Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him:
   the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword,
   while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A
   second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his
   limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I
   live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying,
   'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of
   his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while
   his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and
   amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said,
   more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. …
   When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the
   mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been
   silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in
   which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was
   to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and
   senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny
   of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted
   the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places
   under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins
   Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been
   substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened
   the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an
   edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a
   remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed,
   together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The
   fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which
   the government should be henceforth administered. On this
   point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote
   that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their
   temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and
   Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of
   monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility
   more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The
   debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other
   specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the
   leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate
   deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the
   confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several
   of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace,
   and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to
   offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or
   concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a
   curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal
   violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they
   recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected
   uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost
   senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood
   still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of
   slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of
   Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than
   earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to
   their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the
   senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding
   about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to
   appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the
   object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the
   prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time
   promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The
   senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but
   now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and
   even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of
   their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain
   the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of
   the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city,
   and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all
   parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed
   over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side.
   All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero
   to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend
   upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree,
   which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the
   name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief
   of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor
   by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn
   swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's
   murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by
   a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus,
   with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate
   execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour,
   and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to
   publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late
   interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture
   to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed,
   of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable
   disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects'
   good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. …
   His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of
   numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were
   suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The
   popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his
   own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as
   attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not
   less deeply felt. …
{2705}
   The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter
   disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so
   lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler
   with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too
   long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by
   constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was
   perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen
   and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a
   wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would
   have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and
   Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first
   an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out
   of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of
   hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of
   one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had
   been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the
   infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his
   presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be
   imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private
   station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed
   muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member
   of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's
   character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the
   study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing,
   which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole
   imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and
   when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in
   repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to
   remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly
   arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and
   well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task
   imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of
   mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books,
   varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the
   fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of
   fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the
   reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the
   deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of
   dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate,
   for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute
   it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated
   Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women,
   and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement
   of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the
   armies on the frontiers."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 48-49 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Capes,
      The Early Empire,
      chapters 3-4._

ROME: A. D. 42-67.
   St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.

      See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.

ROME: A. D. 43-53.
   Conquests of Claudius in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

ROME: A. D. 47-54.
   The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.
   Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.
   Murder of the emperor.
   Advent of Nero.

   The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of
   his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become
   proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were
   the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and
   who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and
   Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under
   Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were
   the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius,
   Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league
   with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they
   longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they
   would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by
   tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were
   admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though
   Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should
   be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and
   strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds
   to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous
   herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to
   compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and
   before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with
   honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who
   would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A.
   D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly
   through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This
   nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put
   to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina,
   the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained
   the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very
   different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter
   had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of
   lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but
   Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid
   of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was
   the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness,
   that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal
   brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his
   vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now
   form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of
   Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by
   Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero
   Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore
   caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him,
   and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica,
   whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and
   committed to him the education of her son, that he might be
   fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius,
   yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although
   Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with
   neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of
   affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful
   of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old
   emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was
   concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero
   should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the
   astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the
   palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard,
   he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the
   soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor.
   The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the
   will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was
   poisoned."

      _T. Keightley,
      History of the Roman Empire,
      part 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 50 (volume 5)._

      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 11-12._

{2706}

ROME: A. D. 54-64.
   The atrocities of Nero.
   The murder of his mother.
   The burning of the city.

   "Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula].
   He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of
   murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is
   limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would
   be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his
   peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to
   illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any
   murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by
   enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. …
   For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade
   himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same
   attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to
   murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next
   thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough,
   according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first
   attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for
   Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her
   constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took
   potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more
   probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his
   sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of
   inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of
   Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose
   administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second
   more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in
   the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so
   that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned,
   and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of
   these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false
   ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and
   in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a
   vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to
   all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the
   indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears
   of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial
   ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to
   pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed
   at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which
   was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated
   stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied
   her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of
   her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel
   should get into deep water before the experiment could be
   made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited
   news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless
   into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information
   that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but,
   by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was
   now on her road to mingle congratulations with her
   affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the
   mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for
   everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a
   duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a
   little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could
   any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? …
   Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any
   longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated
   affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend,
   swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have
   suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant
   execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered
   quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such
   forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have
   themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which
   they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking
   at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero
   did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders
   of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public
   mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in
   their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he
   should have made other experiments upon the public patience,
   which seem expressly designed to try how much it would
   support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating
   fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D.
   64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and
   sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one
   great presumption against it, founded on its desperate
   imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts,
   is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the
   Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer
   congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter
   on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed
   incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a
   case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on
   this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral
   honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for
   ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus
   ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of
   the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the
   Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then
   perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and,
   in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation,
   'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.'
   And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's
   hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible
   so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old
   republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for
   health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for
   architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the
   Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For,
   like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour
   proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population;
   and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however,
   this event must have been felt by the people as an
   overwhelming calamity.
{2707}
   And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity
   of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked
   with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and
   effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the
   ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself,
   with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from
   sifting the rubbish."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero._

      _Tacitus,
      Annals,
      books 13-16._

      _S. Baring-Gould,
      The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
      volume 2._

ROME: A. D. 61.
   Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ROME: A. D. 64-68.
   The first persecution of Christians.
   The fitting end of Nero.

   "Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found
   it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to
   exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was
   usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly
   holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after
   the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and
   that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not
   succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was
   perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed
   those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he
   did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish,
   as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of
   the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero
   becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It
   was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red
   light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as
   the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac
   aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's
   Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative,
   indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath
   of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
   For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having
   destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and
   faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered
   heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he
   should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always
   been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the
   Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain,
   because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the
   horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman
   Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither
   Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve
   this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large
   space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we
   do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had
   joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and
   Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never
   in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. …
   That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime
   charged against them was well known both at the time and
   afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and
   partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts
   against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies
   he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid
   indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has
   conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews,
   and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell
   with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even
   more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously
   circulated against them, and from what appeared to the
   ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar
   tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and
   tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men
   detested for their enormities, whom the common people called
   Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed
   during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate,
   and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to
   burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the
   evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every
   quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find
   their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus
   from making any inquiry into the real views and character of
   the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the
   most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says,
   called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for
   staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely
   mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of
   being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to
   death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries,
   to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But
   the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty,
   namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being
   thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's
   persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of
   the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at
   this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One
   was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the
   harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in
   their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the
   whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us
   to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the
   Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus
   tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then
   on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much
   on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.'
   Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly
   means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the
   confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently
   generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity
   in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the
   scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge
   multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the
   number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number
   of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says
   that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against
   mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the
   Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of
   'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the
   historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence
   which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the
   Roman mob.
{2708}
   He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance
   their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts,
   they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being
   nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after
   twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own
   gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with
   the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving
   about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and
   deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion
   towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being
   immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to
   glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene,
   once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St.
   Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the
   vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty
   city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible
   storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread
   from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by
   lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of
   Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of
   heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings
   of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in
   the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were
   the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all
   these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as
   well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially
   terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility
   with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him
   back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the
   air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He
   withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D.
   68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that
   the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C.
   Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from
   being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at
   the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For
   eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he
   heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and
   Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his
   position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and
   remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his
   grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes
   chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile
   he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and
   that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden
   box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though
   to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged
   for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts.
   The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles
   from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over
   his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode
   away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on
   the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and
   most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor
   wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans
   and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not
   summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for
   Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read
   that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the
   ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral
   fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked
   and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a
   fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after
   theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the
   excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade
   Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to
   show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke
   on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held
   the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus,
   one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars!
   And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero
   was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the
   exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who
   had inspired his youth with a genuine love."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      The Early Days of Christianity,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Allies,
      The Formation of Christendom,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 68-96.
   End of the Julian line.
   The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.
   A logical classification.

   "In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The
   three next princes in the succession were personally
   uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, …
   were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous;
   besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all
   three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no
   more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from
   all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the
   line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession,
   Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up
   the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we
   find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of
   curious research. But these emperors would be more properly
   classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian,
   and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian,
   Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and
   infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the
   empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed,
   had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and
   period of observation determined the series and cycle of his
   subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is
   evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars,
   the six latter have no connection whatever by descent,
   collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a
   more logical distribution to combine them according to the
   fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its
   prosperity through the several stages of splendour,
   declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement,
   the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus
   would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian
   would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up
   the melancholy rear."

      _T. De Quincey,
      The Cæsars,
      chapter 3._

ROME: A. D. 69.
   Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

      See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

{2709}

ROME: A. D. 69.
   Galba, Otho, Vitellius.
   Vespasian.
   The Vitellian conflict.

   On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the
   veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in
   Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial
   throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the
   following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard,
   instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of
   Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed
   in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to
   reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt
   against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east
   and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in
   the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single
   talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the
   favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in
   succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent
   forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met
   them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum,
   between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which
   he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made
   his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his
   soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the
   armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by
   the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put
   forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better
   guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius
   Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of
   the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or
   "Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the
   autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on
   the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a
   few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a
   flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors,
   was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally
   destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair,
   showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his
   resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But
   the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in
   the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication.
   Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his
   supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the
   Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the
   Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was
   burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the
   victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius
   Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this
   outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was
   driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished
   poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered
   in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody
   hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen
   the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and
   Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and
   ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign
   ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still
   in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the
   following year.

      _Tacitus,
      History,
      book 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapters 56-57._

ROME: A. D. 70.
   Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

      See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

ROME: A. D. 70-96.
   The Flavian family.
   Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

   "Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time
   completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the
   middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the
   mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to
   the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic
   stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming
   banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the
   emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for
   he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy
   of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no
   longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of
   gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal
   diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His
   life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to
   establish order in the state and in the finances; but he
   accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others,
   made no preparations for the future, it did much for the
   present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were
   felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as
   the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the
   second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in
   the senate the support of his government. This assembly,
   debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did
   a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. …
   Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of
   censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from
   the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy,
   replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire,
   and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised
   several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or
   provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic
   families which had survived, and constituted with these the
   higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil,
   military, and religious functions were taken. … This
   aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities,
   where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had
   acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought
   into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of
   the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second
   them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long
   intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true
   representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all
   important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony,
   that it would be difficult to cite a single individual
   unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his
   absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice
   himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade
   five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the
   ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals
   of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform
   them—he set good examples. …
{2710}
   Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a
   temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils
   of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth
   time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum
   surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already
   existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast
   amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths
   remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for
   Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its
   name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of
   Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed
   the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following
   year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial
   proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the
   incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube,
   extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the
   Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the
   prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive
   to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus
   the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous
   effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon
   foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the
   secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal
   and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69
   years old, and was at his little house in the territory of
   Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am
   becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in
   advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to
   die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this
   effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor
   has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer
   suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,'
   'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian
   being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father
   had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the
   Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the
   censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the
   prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age
   of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by
   his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of
   the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon
   companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed
   to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen
   Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking
   possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he
   would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no
   one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the
   short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were
   overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79),
   while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried
   off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D.
   78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days,
   consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and
   Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank
   with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the
   survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through
   the death of those who had perished in the disaster without
   leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of
   repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he
   sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted
   only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th
   of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his
   paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a
   violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There
   is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter
   and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches.
   'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I
   have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one
   knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then
   thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of
   the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother
   by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of
   taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military
   exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the
   elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours,
   but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the
   titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize
   at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying
   brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On
   the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost
   all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end
   badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. …
   Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his
   reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government,
   then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till
   late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped
   every title upon his own head and decreed deification to
   himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … '
   The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17
   times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator'
   for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled
   Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There
   were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the
   expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a
   great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from
   the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be
   believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged:
   Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased
   slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not
   so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and
   perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of
   high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a
   descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions
   in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the
   Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on
   the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus,
   governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore.
   … This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny
   says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. …
   Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound
   terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every
   occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of
   gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were
   realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September
   18, A. D. 96.

      _V. Duruy,
      History of Rome,
      chapters 77-78 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Suetonius,
      Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7)._

{2711}

ROME: A. D. 78-84.
   Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

ROME: A. D. 96-138.
   Brief reign of Nerva.-
   Adoption and succession of Trajan.
   His persecution of Christians.
   His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.
   Hadrian's relinquishment of them.

   "On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M.
   Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and
   confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to
   Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius,
   chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and
   a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first
   Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent,
   upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame
   and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years,
   rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the
   arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and
   reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became
   popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under
   which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured
   'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The
   treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to
   death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again
   enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to
   administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people,
   he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance,
   and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the
   extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous
   sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and
   reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household
   expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and
   yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a
   prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious
   and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a
   conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It
   was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed
   his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being
   only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the
   Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their
   Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with
   cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor,
   murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid
   Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and
   to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on
   the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by
   circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the
   insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and
   successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the
   Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and
   added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act
   calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent
   of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of
   Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the
   gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the
   sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which
   Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva
   Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. …
   He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father
   had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was
   a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of
   Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants
   generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished
   himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his
   adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in
   Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in
   the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a
   commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a
   perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with
   all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict
   disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by
   their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. …
   The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by
   his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial
   power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the
   army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the
   troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The
   ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together
   with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and
   estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her
   husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister,
   Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman
   society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who
   by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which
   had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The
   tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the
   peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in
   which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the
   country beyond the Danube. …

      See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

   A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient
   reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the
   interval show his genius for civil as well as for military
   administration. … But his presence was soon required in the
   East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him
   for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition
   was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of
   Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,
   instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the
   hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.
   Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message
   with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,
   he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,
   and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to
   entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,
   or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told
   them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as
   he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched
   by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.
{2712}
   The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his
   stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the
   persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance
   and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the
   Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The
   religious distinction was beneath their notice; they
   contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The
   Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were
   meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions
   of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions
   were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial
   influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when
   Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to
   Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his
   province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous
   superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if
   discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having
   received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of
   Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.
   Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his
   diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to
   him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a
   province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost
   his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the
   commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary
   submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,
   Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the
   barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still
   he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king
   of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took
   possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of
   Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,
   and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of
   Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured
   Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,
   the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on
   Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman
   province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the
   same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped
   through a window, not without personal injury. … The river
   Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his
   conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,
   and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making
   preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his
   ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.
   Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were
   either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to
   crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and
   slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable
   advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun
   to be in a state of insurrection.

      See JEWS: A. D. 116.

   He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens),
   whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid
   siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great
   loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving
   his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made
   governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest
   solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia
   (afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa,
   and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D.
   117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to
   nominate a successor, following in this the example of
   Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio
   positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for
   some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his
   last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian
   received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of
   August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days
   afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch,
   he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their
   assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him
   without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should
   remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for
   was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at
   this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new
   Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's
   illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved
   some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania,
   Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of
   insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to
   fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its
   own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It
   was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and
   populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by
   the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean
   envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that
   it was worth any price to purchase peace and security.
   Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria
   and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an
   independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the
   Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his
   throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace
   in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and
   returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the
   following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the
   principal features in his character, would not permit him to
   remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal
   survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and
   for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as
   the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence
   he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and
   discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to
   Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue
   of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years
   of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in
   Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium.
   Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the
   university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through
   Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three
   years. …

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

{2713}

   Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his
   architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter
   Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of
   advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of
   pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for
   his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his
   [Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious,
   self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live
   two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on
   condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus,
   afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus."
   Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper
   savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others
   were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so
   excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put
   him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at
   defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank
   what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his
   sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the
   twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was
   present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli
   (Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles
   Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the
   Castle of St. Angelo."

      _R. W. Browne,
      History of Rome from A. D. 96,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 63-66 (volume 7)._

      _T. Arnold and others,
      History of the Roman Empire
      (Encyclopædia Metropolitana).
      chapters 4-6._

[IMAGE:
THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)
SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.
ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.
TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.

THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.

THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED
BY THE LETTERING.]


ROME: A. D. 138-180.
   The Antonines.
   Antoninus Pius.
   Marcus Aurelius.

   "On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius
   succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late
   Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
   Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the
   sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the
   engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter
   Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven
   years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius
   is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost
   unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were
   lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged;
   confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost
   unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the
   people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one
   aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like
   Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good
   for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military
   title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph.
   With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his
   private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his
   public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his
   life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each
   was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from
   regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave
   him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the
   honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the
   whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual
   confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years
   old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a
   fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned
   his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and
   there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who
   is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly
   recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving
   to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as
   though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred
   to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune,
   which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an
   omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new
   Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission
   of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest
   participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius
   Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty
   of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for
   manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his
   adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general
   than himself, and that he could best serve the State by
   retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his
   brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he
   got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of
   Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be
   a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said
   in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly
   free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense
   to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a
   large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign
   his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the
   wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of
   such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of
   calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State.
   An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in
   wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes,
   by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects.
   To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to
   alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars.
   The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all
   but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the
   Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst
   over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain
   was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of
   trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus
   Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As
   the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus
   was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his
   generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have
   ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These
   generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name
   [A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph,
   bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible
   pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A.
   D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus
   himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the
   undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial
   elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his
   meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in
   fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that
   nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse
   than the waste of time.
{2714}
   It is to such views and such habits that we owe the
   composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid
   the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars
   with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see
   SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he
   was the author of other works which unhappily have perished.
   Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few
   which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost
   autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan
   men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself
   that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it
   was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to
   him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of
   the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which
   he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the
   Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering
   Legion.' …

      See THUNDERING LEGION.

   To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied
   with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful
   and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed.
   … It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the
   embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with
   another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt
   of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type,
   whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and
   trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus
   the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous
   consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had
   inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the
   rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been
   a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was
   assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled
   through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius
   Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and
   indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification,
   he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the
   valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a
   character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a
   charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her
   offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but
   surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to
   be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius
   cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider
   this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the
   Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing
   complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him,
   as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble
   principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he
   shared the profound dislike with which Christians were
   regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and
   virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. …
   The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep
   calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the
   Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused
   into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men
   whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled
   the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let
   the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place
   in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the
   churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly
   after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the
   North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of
   his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and
   bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia,
   either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the
   59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius._

   "One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best
   and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed;
   but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the
   banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that
   incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that
   Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which
   has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal
   Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old,
   because it asserts no dogma."

      _E. Renan,
      English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Capes,
      The Age of the Antonines._

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapters 67-68 (volume 7)._

      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus._

      _G. Long,
      Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,
      introduction._

ROME: A. D. 180-192.
   The reign of Commodus.

   "If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
   world during which the condition of the human race was most
   happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that
   which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
   Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by
   absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The
   armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four
   successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded
   involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he
   sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for
   a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own
   family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was
   neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and
   learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the
   narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices,
   and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was
   designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father,
   amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he
   ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither
   competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm
   elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer
   the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of
   his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and
   Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a
   tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and
   capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature
   had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition.
   His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his
   attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty,
   which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into
   habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. …
{2715}
   During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even
   the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those
   faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son,
   and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained
   a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate
   favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but
   his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even
   displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have
   ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his
   fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was
   returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in
   the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed
   upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate
   sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin
   was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors
   of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but
   within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the
   assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an
   indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body
   of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate
   ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a
   race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the
   former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they
   discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding
   disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was
   equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a
   considerable senator was attended with the death of all who
   might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once
   tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. …
   Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of
   the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to
   himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome:
   he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics.
   Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and
   Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their
   companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the
   destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either
   from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation
   of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a
   draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself
   with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but
   whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and
   drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered
   his chamber, and strangled him without resistance"
   (December 31, A. D. 192).

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. L. Crevier,
      History of the Roman Emperors,
      book 21 (volume 7)._

ROME: A. D. 192-284.
   From Commodus to Diocletian.
   Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.
   Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.
   Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.

   On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of
   the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the
   conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of
   the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But
   the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar
   occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the
   new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of
   throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height.
   Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set
   it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named
   Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to
   receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain
   proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia,
   Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus.
   This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and
   stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating
   Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and
   finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by
   reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He
   maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the
   Parthians and Caledonians.

      See Britain; A. D. 208-211].

   His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he
   wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the
   license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the
   empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a
   prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share
   empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the
   more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to
   disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the
   character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks
   of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial
   impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty
   terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave
   offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who
   murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had
   not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after
   defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by
   the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second
   cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named
   Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,
   in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious
   effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual
   indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,
   and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they
   were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,
   cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,
   succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable
   qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.
   … The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother
   military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of
   Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the
   Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion
   over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over
   Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his
   subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular
   discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the
   amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.
   D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,
   distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a
   stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,
   brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of
   the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the
   chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity
   on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his
   son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.
{2716}
   But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an
   engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin
   was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.
   Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus
   and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,
   the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as
   Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his
   horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he
   and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The
   army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of
   the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point
   of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by
   the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the
   person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of
   age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his
   father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war
   against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage
   worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now
   become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by
   Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an
   Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized
   on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and
   contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A
   third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the
   Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During
   the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."

      _T. Keightley,
      Outlines of History
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia),
      part 1, chapter 9._

   "Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to
   extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of
   its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the
   time exhibit a departure from the system which had been
   usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of
   Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal
   order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk;
   and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal
   information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably
   on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of
   trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly
   displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's
   edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians
   in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St.
   Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity
   for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially
   directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims
   were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of
   Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as
   Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of
   Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings.
   The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the
   Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view
   they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of
   food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way.
   Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul,
   a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert
   of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian
   hermit."

      _J. C. Robertson,
      History of the Christian Church,
      book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion
   of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in
   considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.

   Decius marched against them, and gained some important
   advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of
   the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered
   and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus
   deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the
   survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the
   legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood,
   proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a
   dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the
   persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked
   general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the
   most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who
   was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy,
   and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as
   an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by
   his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed
   emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate,
   the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the
   sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age,
   possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes
   of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths,
   who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the
   northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories
   to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged
   Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the
   coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

   The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the
   lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni
   on the upper part of that river.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 253.

   The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the
   Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus,
   the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague,
   and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained
   several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian
   marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had
   invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia,
   but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by
   Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at
   discretion (A. D. 259).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

   During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity,
   the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while
   no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son.
   Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his
   accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of
   Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was
   invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were
   forced to retire by the emperor.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

{2717}

   Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity:
   his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in
   the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,'
   though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the
   most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple
   at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians,
   and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was
   murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his
   wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of
   the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered
   while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum
   (Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to
   Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of
   the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by
   assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his
   only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths,
   whom he routed with great slaughter

      See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

   He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered
   Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor
   himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was
   elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so
   displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient
   discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a
   native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army;
   and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully
   confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led
   his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

   Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his
   loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His
   next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that
   had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility
   of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from
   Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.

      See PALMYRA.

   This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the
   suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the
   recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for
   thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single
   campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian,
   returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent
   triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the
   province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman
   garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube.
   Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity
   that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His
   officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A.
   D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations
   and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor
   Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven
   months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the
   senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the
   person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian
   was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed
   master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which
   was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only
   defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own
   country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his
   predecessors.

      See GAUL: A. D. 277
      and GERMANY: A. D. 277.

   Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and,
   returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent
   Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and
   commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But
   even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not
   protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny
   (A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian
   guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate
   assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the
   Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283,
   while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his
   successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated
   by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The
   crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death
   by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave,
   was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed
   at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch
   that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a
   new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of
   Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still
   used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African
   nations."

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Student's Manual of Ancient History,
      chapter 17, sections 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 5-12 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 213.
   First collision with the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ROME: A. D. 238.
   Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

ROME: A. D. 238-267.
   Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths
   in Greece and Asia Minor.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ROME: A. D. 284-305.
   Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.
   Its division and subdivision between
   two Augusti and two Cæsars.
   Abdication of Diocletian.

   "The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the
   history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of
   the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate
   itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political
   significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical
   autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are
   simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of
   Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had
   already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The
   nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor
   of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long
   lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of
   citizens. The provinces are still administered under the
   imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an
   earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other
   are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and
   finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically
   weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to
   authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time
   past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of
   the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never
   presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might
   split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there
   were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves
   controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than
   the rest. …
{2718}
   The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe
   which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more
   imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic
   connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart
   of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had
   forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit
   the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious
   order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a
   candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent
   acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of
   Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no
   longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased
   to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in
   constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly
   overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the
   possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check
   upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating
   with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict
   alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up
   his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine
   with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His
   first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a
   brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name
   Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the
   year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the
   fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,
   which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the
   commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of
   the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to
   control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic
   sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a
   pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian
   encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in
   various quarters in the East.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

   His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the
   state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian
   created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to
   himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide
   the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The
   Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving
   their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each
   a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a
   certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed
   kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a
   court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian
   retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the
   realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia
   Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar
   Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces
   on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands,
   and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at
   Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish
   frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and
   Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for
   maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western
   Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest,
   and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all
   the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces.
   Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of
   Egypt.

      See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

   Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew
   a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter.
   Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in
   check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and
   again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered
   and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria
   to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once
   defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to
   submission.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].

   Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the
   commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at
   the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial
   city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The
   illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or
   fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on
   May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he
   performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia,
   the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding
   of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the
   object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene
   was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the
   abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous
   sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority
   of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established
   the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to
   descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements,
   and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his
   great political experiments, he crowned his career of
   moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself
   during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of
   a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared
   for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in
   the cultivation of his garden."

      _C. Merivale,
      General History of Rome,
      chapter 70._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 13._

      _W. T. Arnold,
      The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, DIOCLETIAN.

ROME: A. D. 287.
   Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

      See BAGAUDS;
      also, DEDITITIUS.

ROME: A. D. 303-305.
   The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.

   "Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been
   cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. …
   There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the
   proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were
   more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured
   for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at
   the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still
   larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other
   hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of
   deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they
   would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their
   province or the glories of their race. By men of position and
   of education, they would be despised as opposing every
   interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still
   were the sentiments of the sovereigns.
{2719}
   By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects,
   building temples without authority, appointing priests without
   license, while they lived and died for principles the most
   adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. …
   Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with
   reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar,
   afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of
   Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his
   temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still
   more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He
   turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to
   hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian
   fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was
   because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle
   from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another
   time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the
   presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the
   omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was
   superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a
   man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered
   that all employed in the imperial service should take part in
   the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. …
   At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he
   was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged
   instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law,
   'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.'
   But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder
   Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his
   son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to
   have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting
   the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and
   Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their
   realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a
   note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled,
   one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not
   until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration
   of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and
   terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches
   were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They
   themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. …
   Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as
   suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at
   Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the
   Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern
   provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The
   Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers,
   were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults
   ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of
   the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners
   should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual
   under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the
   racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth
   edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was
   published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest
   every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one
   of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand
   the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar
   Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were
   no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of
   the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in
   Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree
   diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were
   thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst
   the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those
   who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or
   beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In
   many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up
   with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to
   men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what
   rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer
   of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness.
   … The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be
   called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one
   side slain."

      _S. Eliot,
      History of the Early Christians,
      book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Carr,
      The Church and the Roman Empire,
      chapter 2._

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 3, chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 305-323.
   The wars of Constantine and his rivals.
   His triumph.
   His reunion of the Empire.

   On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and
   Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of
   Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew
   of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his
   favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of
   Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of
   Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.
   Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in
   Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,
   in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not
   courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to
   withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which
   he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,
   for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,
   while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far
   greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful
   rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the
   throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and
   his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his
   retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but
   afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at
   Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.
   Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but
   retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend
   Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased
   Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming
   the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin
   in the East (including Africa), making common cause against
   Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in
   these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,
   Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The
   old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared
   against him.
{2720}
   He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but
   soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married
   his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and
   restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was
   put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at
   Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and
   Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine
   and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and
   Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,
   who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine
   to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,
   with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army
   of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;
   took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought
   outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third
   encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine
   miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this
   decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the
   next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was
   defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon
   afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.
   313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was
   ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.
   Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and
   the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near
   Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in
   Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued
   for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession
   of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,
   Constantine was contented with the great empire he then
   possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman
   world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the
   war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically
   decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d
   of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,
   which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,
   Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to
   his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again
   united and Constantine was its single lord.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapters 7-22._

ROME: A. D. 306.
   Constantine's defeat of the Franks.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

ROME: A. D. 313.
   Constantine's Edict of Milan.
   Declared toleration of Christianity.

   After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the
   Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in
   January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with
   Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the
   results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan,
   which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of
   equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as
   follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I,
   Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan,
   and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the
   public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest
   appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all.
   We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those
   matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be
   exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the
   Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of
   worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and
   celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all
   that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the
   following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most
   correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to
   Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship.
   But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to
   that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the
   Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour
   and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to
   the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly
   accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly
   wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any
   persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or
   from any other one, these shall restore them to the
   Christians, without money and without demanding any price. …
   They who as we have said restore them without valuation and
   price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and
   liberality."

      _Eusebius,
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 10, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      Progress of Religious Freedom,
      chapter 2._

ROME: A. D. 318-325.
   The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

      See ARIANISM;
      and NICÆA: A. D. 325.

ROME: A. D. 323.
   The conversion of Constantine.
   His Christianity.
   His character.

   "The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has
   afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the
   present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the
   Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he
   represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,
   best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form
   of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of
   manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to
   Christianity took place at the period of the war with
   Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject
   are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,
   was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at
   Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him
   the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the
   death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within
   two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,
   'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial
   sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He
   did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the
   shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top
   circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.
   Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early
   Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after
   Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in
   the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers
   in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',
   published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives
   us an interesting account of the moral process of the
   Emperor's conversion.
{2721}
   Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and
   hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was
   endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced
   that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces
   could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
   enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,
   he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was
   thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign
   appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might
   have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been
   related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
   himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
   history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and
   society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
   hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the
   testimony of after time has established its truth? He said
   that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he
   saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the
   heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer
   by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
   and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on
   some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,
   that he doubted within himself what the import of this
   apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and
   reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his
   sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign
   which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure
   a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as
   a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The
   standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous
   Labarum.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapter 11._

   "He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain
   religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence
   of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from
   dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and
   finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his
   vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined
   instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the
   heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were
   certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this
   persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that
   he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the
   gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that
   such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as
   occurred in his political course, did not well befit an
   instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be
   considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops
   at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved
   for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to
   be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of
   God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a
   rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the
   heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in
   immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to
   what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the
   third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them
   congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in
   the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God
   in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were
   shocked at such a parallel."

      _A. Neander,
      General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
      period 2, section. 1, A._

   "As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental
   manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of
   Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different
   colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He
   substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers,
   for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the
   first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and
   lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the
   instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their
   jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and
   the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the
   wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He
   poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more
   especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most
   illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his
   first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and
   the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a
   desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his
   brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his
   nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical
   priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to
   rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent
   him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest
   veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine
   atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by
   heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed
   on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property
   connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to
   ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been
   candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves
   depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How
   was it possible that their characters should not undergo a
   total change?"

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      See, also,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

ROME: A. D. 330.
   Transference of the capital of the Empire to
   Byzantium (Constantinople).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.

ROME: A. D. 337-361.
   Redivision of the Empire.
   Civil wars between the sons of Constantine
   and their successors.
   Elevation of Julian to the throne.

   Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine,
   Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively
   raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and
   thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also
   two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the
   half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of
   the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other
   Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the
   imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine,
   was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to
   take the western Gallic provinces under his especial
   administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia,
   Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of
   the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Constantine the Great,
      chapter 33._

{2722}

   The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D.
   337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the
   possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for
   peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and
   Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and
   otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and
   another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms.
   The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on
   much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now
   reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name.
   There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by
   Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of
   the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was
   killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took
   possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to
   Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was
   destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to
   his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction.
   Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops
   in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the
   purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose
   these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged
   man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to
   surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to
   meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great
   battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in
   modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from
   Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but
   slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single
   ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his
   burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young
   nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the
   house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He
   raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him
   the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus
   conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed
   in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian,
   escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and
   by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn,
   was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself
   there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A.
   D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of
   the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of
   troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the
   Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian
   emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He
   promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition
   and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were
   rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an
   extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black
   Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the
   Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the
   civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this
   stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian
   became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced
   Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 18-22._

ROME: A. D. 338-359.
   Wars of Constantius with the Persians.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 350-361.
   Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.
   Its recovery by Julian.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ROME: A. D. 361-363.
   Julian and the Pagan revival.

   "Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those
   supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be
   easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed
   from that in the East. In the West it was principally the
   Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to
   their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the
   people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made
   much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy
   could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an
   aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more
   dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman
   nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and
   illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch,
   and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were
   almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen
   spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian
   Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was
   held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For,
   according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine
   stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it
   was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the
   Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed
   and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it
   was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was
   the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The
   educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all
   this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they
   beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works
   of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness
   destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute
   of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they
   themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the
   Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the
   superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the
   re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in
   Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial
   throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal
   progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to
   the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit
   of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was
   chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious
   aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism,
   because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul
   of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all
   the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of
   course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he
   naturally received the most devoted homage among the
   Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their
   flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a
   declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he
   had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the
   church in Vienne.
{2723}
   But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly
   offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once
   more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as
   universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a
   deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They
   too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years
   hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to
   feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that
   even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as
   a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever
   seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic
   controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the
   suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious
   liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian
   should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly
   thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the
   Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides,
   he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity
   and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an
   enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who
   surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine
   voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was
   from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less
   firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out
   without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to
   Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity.
   … The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen
   from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest
   and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had
   corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of
   useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be
   simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an
   Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose
   table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other
   employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A
   temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a
   daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the
   sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife
   into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every
   festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe
   the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was
   equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as
   Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship
   which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was
   re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods
   were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be
   celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became
   plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves
   proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius
   of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a
   secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's
   guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and
   from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The
   dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began
   to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen
   only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really
   isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic,
   and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by
   poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be
   found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers,
   who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far
   too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They
   preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement
   best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the
   monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably
   tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them
   better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as
   Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the
   knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was
   to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration
   must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt
   compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for
   such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian,
   were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living.
   The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. …
   While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism,
   other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An
   imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to
   act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient
   classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for
   Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when
   they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not
   compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not
   permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took
   them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a
   persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution,
   yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any
   which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of
   that which should be common to all men,—education. …
   Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration
   of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He
   spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only
   for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and
   yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen
   friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a
   distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to
   Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the
   great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There
   new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his
   gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was
   restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to
   offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude
   of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or
   incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man
   approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the
   newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the
   Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the
   Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught
   fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a
   dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many
   Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its
   martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and
   the whole world besides, advanced to new measures.
{2724}
   The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property
   confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had
   forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any
   office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian
   himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple
   to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for
   hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses.
   Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and
   gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then
   he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and
   expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred
   especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. …
   Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the
   Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting
   over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark
   that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they
   deserved to be governed by such a one."

      _G. Uhlhorn,
      The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
      book 3, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. H. Rendall.
      Julian the Emperor._

      _B. L. Gildersleeve,
      The Emperor Julian
      (Essays and Studies, pages 355-400)._

      _Gregory Nazianzen,
      Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,
      Funeral Oration upon Julian,
      translated by C. W. King._

ROME: A. D. 363.
   The Persian expedition of Julian.
   His death.
   Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 363-379.
   Christianity reascendant.
   Secret hostility of Paganism.
   Reign of Valentinian and Valens.
   Approach of the Huns.
   The struggle with the Goths.
   Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.

   When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long
   enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had
   marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession
   of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great
   number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian
   had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From
   that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect,
   which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient
   honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the
   government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably
   hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved
   in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to
   a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests,
   nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever
   displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of
   martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in
   letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were
   otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost
   without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept
   possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those
   of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate
   were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common
   people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its
   power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name
   of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the
   throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small
   town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army
   which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly
   held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a
   captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count
   Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to
   one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage
   rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman
   empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its
   greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required,
   at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a
   second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom
   he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character
   which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in
   the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded
   to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the
   whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law,
   and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided
   Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted
   the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a
   reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to
   undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to
   seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast
   provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily
   became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the
   'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the
   contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought
   by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the
   magistrature. …

      See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

   During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West
   (A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several
   brilliant victories. …

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

   Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and
   generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast
   prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions
   not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the
   West. …

      See BRITAIN. A. D. 367-370.

   At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language
   he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier
   was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …
   Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people
   of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful
   to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The
   dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube
   and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had
   made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that
   period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.
   … Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the
   Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of
   Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere
   name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and
   severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the
   career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and
   by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit
   of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,
   November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was
   scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a
   child,—shared the West between them. …
{2725}
   Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and
   vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to
   the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had
   traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300
   leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,
   begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia
   and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions
   and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that
   they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit
   in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by
   two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which
   neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August
   9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his
   soldiers fell.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 376, and 378.

   "The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
   terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced,
   ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of
   Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes,
   returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia.
   From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by
   conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to
   take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition;
   no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the
   responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes
   were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help
   was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and
   emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum
   with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of
   Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to
   secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not
   wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest,
   he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the
   Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own
   territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire
   stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour.
   Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his
   enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the
   Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively
   vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had
   been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of
   Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his
   name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the
   command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and
   disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence
   of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the
   army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his
   colleague, and emperor of the East."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      introduction, and book 1, chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 378.
   Gratian's overthrow of the Alemanni in Gaul.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ROME: A. D. 379-395.
   Theodosius and the Goths.
   His Trinitarian Edict.
   Revolt of Maximus.
   Death of Gratian.
   Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
   Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.
   Death of Theodosius.

   "The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to
   restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman
   army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the
   disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging
   a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens
   had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking
   everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the
   very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and
   straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish
   after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and
   thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial
   troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in
   clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the
   harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell
   sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations
   throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did
   not fully recover for some months, was productive of two
   important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,
   (2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.
   (1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to
   have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great
   Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination
   towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had
   postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of
   his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to
   be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite
   at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of
   Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the
   head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To
   the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations
   who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise
   that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the
   Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and
   Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do
   now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles
   and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one
   Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and
   in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to
   assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all
   others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy
   of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall
   not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by
   Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power
   to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'
   Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the
   side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part
   of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or
   semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian
   had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly
   two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople
   had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of
   Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the
   Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the
   Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:
   but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened
   between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly
   all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great
   Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of
   Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian
   hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high
   passes of the Balkans.
{2726}
   The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be
   all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of
   380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)
   were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in
   which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who
   still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …

      See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

   The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the
   character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but
   merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the
   effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three
   years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …

      See THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.

   In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against
   the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed
   Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a
   native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man
   of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he
   had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had
   evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his
   subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of
   Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power
   without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his
   troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and
   killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied
   with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had
   fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the
   appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in
   the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for
   grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the
   suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and
   protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army
   and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then
   dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions
   of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not
   await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of
   Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and
   sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of
   Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and
   discussed the present position of affairs. … What the
   entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the
   tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose
   wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for
   his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace
   her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for
   the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with
   vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley,
   defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona
   (Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of
   Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering
   himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with
   the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and
   delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius
   "handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western
   Empire, both his own especial share and that which had
   formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor
   was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died
   apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he
   governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish
   generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the
   government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless
   insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be
   strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the
   prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple,
   hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a
   rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own,
   named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and
   rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of
   Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping
   Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution
   looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened
   the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius
   was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years
   of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same
   route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place
   "half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps
   are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus
   (now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The
   battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle,
   lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was
   taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own
   hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now
   indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague
   except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as
   it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer,
   many things might have gone differently in the history of the
   world. But, little more than four months after the victory of
   the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of
   dropsy, at Milan."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      The Dynasty of Theodosius,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. W. Farrar,
      Lives of the Fathers,
      chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2)._

      _R. Thornton,
      St. Ambrose,
      chapters 6-14._

ROME: A. D. 388.
   Formal establishment of Christianity.

   Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional
   religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which
   they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.
   … The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to
   observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a
   solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude
   of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient
   monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to
   the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again
   restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
   banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the
   emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed
   to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples
   or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the
   people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
   Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.
   But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the
   senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to
   Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the
   restoration of the altar of Victory.
{2727}
   They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,
   and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop
   of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,
   submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.
   D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of
   Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the
   Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,
   was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence
   inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was
   condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."

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

ROME: A. D. 391-395.
   Suppression of Paganism.

   "The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably
   abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by
   the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The
   priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the
   revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of
   the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were
   still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to
   them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and
   magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part
   of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their
   superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the
   course of a few years, the success of his measures against
   heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to
   proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt
   the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of
   paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East,
   directing him to close all heathen temples within his
   jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in
   this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the
   monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius
   gradually increased the rigour of his legislative
   prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that
   to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an
   offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the
   following year, not only all public, but even all private and
   domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the
   severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and
   tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples,
   excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and
   at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians,
   was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch
   Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little
   disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still
   less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to
   inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the
   cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the
   ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the
   senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus,
   the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose,
   who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a
   confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not
   long after, a more important victory was gained, in an
   enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of
   Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity
   should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State.
   This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and
   its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform,
   nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior
   citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a
   little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome
   was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of
   desolation."

      _J. B. S. Carwithen and A. Lyall,
      History of the Christian Church,
      page 63-65._

      ALSO IN:
      P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

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

ROME: A. D. 394-395.
   Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
   Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.
   Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.
   Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.

   "The division of the Empire between East and West on the
   accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was
   possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding
   partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to
   indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently
   accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the
   well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'.
   which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa
   Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the
   same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca
   and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the
   matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia,
   and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original
   but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for
   the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as
   Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The
   inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the
   Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its
   source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia,
   Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia,
   most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which
   was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western
   Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern
   share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of
   Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By
   this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by
   Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What
   makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the
   tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the
   'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern
   geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus
   and Greece.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4, note C,
      and chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly
   before his death, appears to have been generally expected and
   approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the
   former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th
   year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more
   and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no
   share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such
   as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It
   was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be
   independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should
   be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one
   commonwealth. …
{2728}
   At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality
   of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments
   were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so
   often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the
   Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been
   approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …
   Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a
   disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its
   defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the
   guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the
   guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,
   owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his
   plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature
   of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.
   Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,
   and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military
   abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced
   Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the
   imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      The Sancta Respublica Romana,
      chapter 1._

   "Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the
   great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal;
   for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been
   sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was
   imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of
   Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and
   enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project
   of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he
   imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute
   vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had
   offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an
   adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch
   Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future
   Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he
   chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a
   distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. …
   Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor,
   and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged
   by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were
   speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to
   Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East.
   The event which at length brought him into contact with
   Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled
   by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of
   Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation
   in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace,
   even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

   It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because
   there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were
   still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was
   obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back
   immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that
   general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics
   of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity,
   arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland
   through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither
   the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. …
   It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced
   a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all
   events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to
   engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced
   Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch
   the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence
   he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the
   presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho
   yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost
   suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command
   of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona,
   allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands
   of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of
   Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with
   Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the
   latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the
   lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but
   whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a
   plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to
   Constantinople, is uncertain."

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 396-398.
   Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.
   Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.
   Commanding position of Stilicho.

   "For the next five or six years the chief power over the
   feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his
   fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old
   eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth,
   commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did
   Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to
   deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign
   was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared
   of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country
   on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was
   expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an
   ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had
   pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point,
   and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What
   was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? …
   The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution
   co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against
   pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in
   driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for
   Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer
   indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396
   Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward
   whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual
   weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at
   least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime
   cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his
   Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an
   officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

{2729}

   The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not
   stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted
   apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the
   forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost
   unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare
   the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome
   herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this
   interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the
   foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the
   elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive
   dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of
   which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of
   Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely
   stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual
   master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had
   suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus.
   "The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left
   behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the
   year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's
   broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding
   the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. …
   He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing
   between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts,
   renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it
   to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his
   refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to
   Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter
   months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course,
   undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable
   instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel
   wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another
   son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly
   40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who
   slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands.
   "Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again
   for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The
   glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest
   point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had
   given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the
   father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold
   power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 400-403.
   First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.
   Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

ROME: A. D. 400-518.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.
   Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
   Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,
   Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.
   Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.

   "While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had
   actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of
   Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas,
   the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature,
   the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had
   no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand
   Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over
   to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the
   emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans
   would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years
   later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl
   put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D.
   400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms
   and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the
   Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks
   were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper
   hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves
   lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the
   empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly
   across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes,
   king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of
   Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that
   [had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to
   spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative
   peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war
   between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John
   Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of
   saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate
   alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were
   secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at
   the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the
   luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues
   of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother
   prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about
   John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to
   allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a
   hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside
   the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor;
   riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the
   Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest
   the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year,
   however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke
   out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned
   another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter
   Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed
   force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably
   kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St.
   Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread
   to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the
   Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of
   ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the
   repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary
   mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a
   still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on
   his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D.
   408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had
   preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left
   to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. …
   The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of
   the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who
   held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates
   nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial
   treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a
   Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube,
   where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of
   Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of
   Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and
   cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan
   Peninsula. …
{2730}
   The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the
   young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace
   under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives
   of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and
   Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects.
   Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather
   and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he
   took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his
   beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the
   ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence
   over him, though she was but two years his senior. When
   Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta,
   and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an
   extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she
   took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for
   thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her
   husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's
   crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her
   sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and
   unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East
   with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt
   before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his
   sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal.
   By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came
   of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of
   the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by
   in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short
   war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great
   king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the
   lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had
   once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost
   invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as
   Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the
   annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The
   reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for
   the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a
   fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter,
   who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the
   West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his
   successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate
   prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended
   her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier
   and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but
   formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a
   political expedient it was all that could be desired. The
   empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed
   itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila
   died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which
   Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When
   Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the
   hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred
   as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the
   throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms,
   all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or
   by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474),
   Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was
   that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through
   the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While,
   beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped
   off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who
   reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan
   Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their
   realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally
   exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the
   difference of their fate came from the character of their
   rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      Story of the Byzantine Empire,
      chapters 4-5._

   "In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the
   general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors
   between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong
   features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into
   ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these
   emperors having organised the system of administration which
   has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of
   Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military
   commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial
   departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with
   impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal
   danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But,
   unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect
   the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the
   treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of
   intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves
   from the financial oppression of the subaltern
   administration."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 2, section 11._

ROME: A. D. 404-408.
   The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.
   Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.
   Invasion of Radagaisus.
   Alliance with Alaric the Goth.
   Fall and death of Stilicho.

   "After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to
   accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate
   in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory
   and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from
   the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the
   Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only
   thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns
   [whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at
   Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …
   The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and
   courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of
   Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the
   last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to
   which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the
   defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in
   some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely
   remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of
   barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of
   the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the
   perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.
{2731}
   The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,
   the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the
   throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the
   8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government
   and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not
   without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.
   While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a
   furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who
   yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been
   gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the
   continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon
   considers to have been the impelling cause of the great
   avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon
   Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …

      See RADAGAISUS.

   Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege
   of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the
   history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked
   and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho
   came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished
   host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians,
   surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to
   surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The
   chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as
   slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into
   the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor
   of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a
   treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared
   master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture
   of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and
   ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement
   with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among
   the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of
   Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and
   summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his
   ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne
   he had upheld for thirteen years.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 30 (volume 3)._

ROME: A. D. 406-500.
   The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
   The great Teutonic invasion and occupation
   of the Western Empire.

   "Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier
   of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and
   tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the
   Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great
   military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been
   really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain
   on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden
   and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the
   titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the
   fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the
   Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of
   Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only
   temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast
   company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The
   frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who
   professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside,
   and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three
   following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers
   tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by
   considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine
   frontier, and these movements may have agitated the
   inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of
   approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by
   the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and
   Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the
   auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a
   considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the
   western world.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

   It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage
   of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in
   Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems
   certain that both events were connected with the general
   Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year
   406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals
   crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain
   was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct
   contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation
   that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they
   had done the work for which he designed them he would find no
   difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We
   can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them
   to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or
   Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite
   certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where
   numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards.
   Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the
   barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the
   land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain
   and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much
   to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a
   Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing
   the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."

      _J. B. Bury,
      A History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

   "If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most
   convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of
   Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not
   spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from
   any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land
   they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine
   were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations
   made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the
   high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals
   soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted
   out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer
   time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic
   forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic
   forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great
   national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays
   quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the
   Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had
   passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One
   branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,
   and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great
   invasion.
{2732}
   What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer
   is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,
   but put the existing elements into new relations to one
   another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a
   new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to
   Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press
   down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank
   no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in
   the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman
   of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs
   into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of
   the modern world, and though none of them are among the
   nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position
   taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that
   crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint
   Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the
   formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations
   themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only
   a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life
   of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the
   settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the
   mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one
   another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their
   living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing
   different from either, a thing which we cannot call either
   Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call
   Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to
   the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the
   Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and
   their Romance tongues."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Chief Periods of European History,
      pages 87-90._

   "The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the
   Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people,
   many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c.,
   wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed
   over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are
   partial incursions which are without any historical
   importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks,
   alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The
   Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul
   between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country
   between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the
   centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412
   and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the
   Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south
   of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king
   resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and
   500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves
   between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without
   including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy;
   Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the
   end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive
   occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German
   tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its
   various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations.
   There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks
   were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the
   Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul,
   these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had
   lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with
   the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much
   for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been
   Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany
   in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul
   which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference,
   which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of
   the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin
   Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less
   important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err,
   the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did
   the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen
   how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how
   much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments,
   and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a
   condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet
   have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia
   Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much
   sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is
   what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the
   three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the
   conquered than from that of the conquerors."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2, lecture 8._

   "The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which
   overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which
   undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not
   strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.
   … It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were
   barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial
   army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers
   composed of men of various races under the control of Roman
   discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the
   authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the
   great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the
   Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,
   were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman
   colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the
   barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement
   seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture
   of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman
   name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves
   two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their
   conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a
   machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather
   clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all
   the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they
   inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by
   the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed
   invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of
   the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of
   modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it
   is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands
   of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of
   Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.
{2733}
   The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they
   ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,
   fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they
   preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this
   they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a
   mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause
   in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their
   old military organization, and, after attempts more or less
   successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary
   purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the
   countries they conquered by simple military force, under their
   Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their
   private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the
   Roman law."

      _C. J. Stillé,
      Studies in Mediæval History,
      chapter 2._

   "The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four
   chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and
   science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its
   political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the
   empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the
   Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German
   with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement
   of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these
   all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was
   the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to
   unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of
   modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element,
   the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by
   the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend
   itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of
   history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent
   occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race,
   with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete
   an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered.
   It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest
   of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to
   be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in
   the impression which the world they had conquered made upon
   the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a
   conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they
   pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the
   land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of
   the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst
   of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome.
   They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over
   nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings,
   roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics
   and skill in government, the like of which they had never
   known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was
   divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and
   with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and
   saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness
   and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest
   barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon
   the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other
   way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a
   physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete,
   but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was
   little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at
   all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for
   instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the
   Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they
   adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire,
   and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had
   overthrown it."

      _G. B. Adams,
      Civilization During the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,
      and 5-10TH CENTURIES.

ROME: A. D. 408-410.
   The three sieges and
   the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.
   Death of the Gothic chieftain.

   Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose
   brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire,
   Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of
   barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed
   religious opinions different from his own, from every public
   office; … and, to complete the purification of his army,
   ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of
   the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered
   up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims
   were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage.
   These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the
   barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to
   Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the
   midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and
   terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had
   been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over
   to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead
   them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which
   Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded
   reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance
   of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he
   obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained
   an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this
   provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408,
   meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened
   that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West
   was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome.
   He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years
   after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that
   long interval her citizens had never looked down from her
   walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving
   in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by
   assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the
   Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was
   eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million
   of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the
   clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand
   pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the
   army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of
   Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped
   from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of
   Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric,
   Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by
   name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it
   would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and
   Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands
   fell until they extended to Noricum, only.
{2734}
   But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric
   marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the
   venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring
   the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a
   new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of
   the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new
   Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military
   officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus,
   unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not
   recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he
   got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and
   stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a
   year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with
   the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to
   Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April,
   410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the
   Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital
   of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury
   of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of
   pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches,
   which were preserved from all insult, together with their
   sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within
   their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to
   pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is
   affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of
   the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed
   appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient
   importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths,
   a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but
   Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest
   of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw
   his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into
   Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven
   centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed
   less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few
   months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he
   made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the
   little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza,
   the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back
   to its course.

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31._

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 1, chapter 7._

ROME: A. D. 409-414.
   Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ROME: A. D. 410.
   Abandonment of Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 410.

ROME: A. D. 410-419.
   Treaty with the Visigoths.
   Their settlement in Aquitaine.
   Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

ROME: A. D. 410-420.
   The barbarian attack on Gaul joined by the Franks.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.

ROME: A. D. 412-453.
   Mixed Roman and barbarian administration in Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 412-453.

ROME: A. D. 423-450.
   Death of Honorius.
   Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.
   Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

   The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was
   ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was
   his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia.
   The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths
   and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as
   wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on
   her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to
   marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom
   he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself
   on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving
   his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently,
   on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna
   and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius
   occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there
   when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne
   was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who
   reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the
   Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child
   Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425.
   For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia,
   reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at
   Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich
   province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia
   and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the
   Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman
   government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive
   declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to
   the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think
   proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for
   the approbation of his independent colleague."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      chapters 6-8._

ROME: A. D. 428-439.
   Conquests of the Vandals in Spain and Africa.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 428; and 429-439.

ROME: A. D. 441-446.
   Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.
   Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

ROME: A. D. 446.
   The last appeal from Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 446.

ROME: A. D. 451.
   Great invasion of Gaul by the Huns.
   Their defeat at Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ROME: A. D. 452.
   Attila's invasion of Italy.
   The frightful devastation of his hordes.
   Origin of Venice.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      and VENICE: A. D. 452.

ROME: A. D. 455.
   Pillage of the city by the Vandals.

   "The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were
   increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of
   Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus
   A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had
   afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,
   avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against
   her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the
   ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,
   not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made
   every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his
   subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more
   properly speaking, piracy.
{2735}
   His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,
   had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they
   went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and
   spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the
   12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in
   a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was
   impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the
   ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with
   a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths
   had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored
   along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty
   which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry
   off by land."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8 (volume 1)._

   "On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the
   chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome,
   though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in
   no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may
   have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture,
   being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver
   and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in
   those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia.
   Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon
   the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine,
   blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard,
   above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages,
   for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the
   Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in
   the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 455-476.
   Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.
   From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.
   The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,
   called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.

   "After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of
   the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought
   of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the
   Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of
   the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the
   West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for
   a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the
   Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the
   Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to
   the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the
   strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a
   king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the
   insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably
   murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian.
   Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too
   independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a
   moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After
   Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a
   Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople,
   wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after
   five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his
   barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator
   Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome,
   in which the imperial court had once more settled itself.
   Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people,
   resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was
   taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered
   every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius
   was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later.
   Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October.
   Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian
   king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer
   of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed
   himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and
   accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later
   circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to
   assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so.
   By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian
   "patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila,
   and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a
   strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been
   given the names of the first king and the first emperor of
   Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the
   diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part
   of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer,
   Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance
   of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left
   to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast
   to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus
   was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the
   Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially
   signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that
   the separate Western Empire should cease, and their
   recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should
   be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and
   the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such
   luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus
   at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king,
   sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and
   robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more
   than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman
   empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."

      _R. W. Church,
      Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

   "When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom
   a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,
   had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a
   deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to
   lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor
   Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor
   of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was
   qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of
   their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the
   title of patrician and the administration of the Italian
   provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and
   Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is
   often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,
   respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his
   subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of
   the Eastern Emperor.
{2736}
   There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at
   all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some
   extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their
   state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that
   Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil
   government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by
   Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under
   Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come
   to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of
   the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapters 4-8._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

ROME: A. D. 476.
   Causes of the decay of the Empire
   and the significance of its fall in the West.

   "Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the
   line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear
   that the foundations of human life and society, which had
   seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The
   Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the
   world; but either the world was in danger of falling into
   chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas
   of government and national existence were to struggle with the
   old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos.
   Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of
   civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a
   history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start
   in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and
   unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the
   West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared.
   What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the
   Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What
   disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal
   Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the
   old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman
   schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of
   central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great
   successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively
   Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions
   the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and
   Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England,
   and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of
   civilization."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 1._

   "The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The
   Imperial system had been established … to protect the
   frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success.
   But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an
   invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without
   great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and
   foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the
   hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more
   formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw
   the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in
   separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear
   no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the
   history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and
   Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the
   Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian
   Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to
   defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that
   the Roman world would not have steadily receded through
   centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly
   inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire,
   it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the
   Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it
   is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they
   had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was
   much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations
   now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other
   hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area,
   and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had
   inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman
   world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole
   steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a
   vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric
   world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric
   world had actually received two considerable accessions of
   force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we
   can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation.
   As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large
   confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of
   isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation
   we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new
   intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it
   is practically to be considered as a great increase of
   aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century
   they were threatened in their original settlements by the
   Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the
   Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired
   by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more
   considerable momenta must have been required to turn the
   scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman
   Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must
   have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying
   condition. Now what can have been the cause of this
   unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a
   moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and
   excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote
   the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to
   such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and
   brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth
   century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the
   barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of
   this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be
   victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves
   inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital
   could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury
   corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the
   contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable
   generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have
   been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can
   be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay.
{2737}
   In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained
   what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of
   Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius
   Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men
   were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof
   of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was
   carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have
   been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own
   defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of
   turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor
   was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to
   borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole
   tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was
   a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to
   prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission.
   … The want of any principle of increase in the Roman
   population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second
   century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the
   returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of
   Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens
   that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship
   to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman
   of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most
   comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage
   with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay;
   with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but
   an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the
   judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into
   the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would
   lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing
   partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of
   infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in
   ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had
   shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans.
   There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd
   Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but
   mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to
   rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard
   of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that
   great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon;
   namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines
   and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled
   tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately
   by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of
   rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable
   exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at
   work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of
   sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was
   bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the
   more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the
   too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the
   absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to
   listlessness which belongs to the military character."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Roman Imperialism,
      pages 47-61._

   "At no period within the sphere of historic records was the
   commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and
   slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint
   imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression
   abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its
   decline seem to have little connexion with the form of
   government established in the first and second centuries. They
   were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though
   their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by
   outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing
   supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of
   population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from
   the second century before our era. The last age of the
   Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion
   of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under
   Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some
   quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in
   others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt
   again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we
   ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it
   was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional
   government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously
   at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of
   lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political
   equality, with political justice, with political moderation.
   The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every
   noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than
   an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale,
   commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman
   slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which
   befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of
   Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no
   common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the
   West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more
   lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary
   sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life
   were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly
   have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have
   left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national
   existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying
   under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the
   commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and
   fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing
   years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied
   decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no
   elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force;
   the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the
   hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own
   right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and
   conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and
   the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other
   periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were
   observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the
   courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical
   vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every
   natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined
   dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These
   transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms
   of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier,
   from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a
   fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the
   wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians,
   all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans under the Empire,
      chapter 18 (volume 7)._

{2738}

   "Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a
   flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called
   by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman
   empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog
   with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of
   that formerly inviolable title, before which the most
   shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus
   perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners
   fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no
   longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not
   understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar
   languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman
   language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that
   the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it
   had conquered, then became established between the men in the
   palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived
   only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly
   the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then
   that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has
   corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the
   conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious
   inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a
   small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke;
   the property of those men, as well as the others, had been
   their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of
   subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was
   the order of things which had been gradually forming since the
   time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment
   of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke.
   He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put
   in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had
   just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil
   magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An
   inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The
   aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of
   liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him
   thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built
   Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new
   city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome
   had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home
   of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience
   to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the
   empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of
   citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living
   under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated
   according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of
   the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and
   Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most
   despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain,
   was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was
   given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting
   itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased
   immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that
   privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The
   rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of
   burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are
   restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness
   the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious
   Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by
   him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured
   from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free
   nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it
   for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found
   pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the
   Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend
   themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old
   Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose
   arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to
   see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods
   of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted
   its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to
   arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he
   lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense
   extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth
   part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the
   gates of free Rome."

      _A. Thierry,
      Narratives of the Merovingian Era
      and Historical Essays, essay 13._

   "It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the
   power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of
   Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence
   of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her
   victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this
   immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit
   to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of
   republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of
   hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first
   condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of
   every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a
   master of the world was often left to chance. At length the
   monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute,
   without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to
   exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an
   extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."

      _E. Lavisse,
      General View of the Political History of Europe,
      chapter 1._

ROME: A. D. 486.
   The last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

ROME: A. D. 488.
   Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and
   commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.

      See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.

ROME: A. D. 488-526.
   The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.

   It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,
   commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from
   Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the
   Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the
   west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and
   children as well as of warriors—and the total number is
   estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of
   the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it
   came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on
   the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great
   battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and
   who disputed their advance.
{2739}
   Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the
   course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was
   so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a
   year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian
   Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him
   battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not
   courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and
   the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the
   28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by
   Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and
   terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian
   and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with
   some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to
   the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause
   seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a
   treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere
   long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of
   his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat
   to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and
   received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,
   in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not
   far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.
   Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within
   its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in
   the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a
   surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to
   his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned
   king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.
   Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the
   reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,
   on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the
   chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than
   appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German
   neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of
   offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by
   calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have
   exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as
   his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius
   in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the
   purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the
   act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference
   between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,
   though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with
   much the same institutions it had under the best of the
   Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from
   his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in
   duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his
   grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,
   over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern
   Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with
   Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing
   much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,
   over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,
   his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth
   was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure
   of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It
   vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it
   was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to
   later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not
   even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.

      _H. Bradley,
      Story of the Goths,
      chapters 16-20._

   "Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman
   civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor
   Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had
   disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the
   dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he
   lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman
   senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that
   the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.'
   He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects,
   and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and
   that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but
   appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of
   the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished
   to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a
   barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost
   under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres,
   and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built.
   The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed
   to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The
   iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked.
   The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas.
   The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not
   know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit
   of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus.
   The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve
   books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first
   sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected
   the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however,
   the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he
   threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed
   among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was
   being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his
   son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them
   in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote
   his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both
   executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their
   innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said
   to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."

      _V. Duruy,
      History of the Middle Ages,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
   Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
   by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
   representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
   selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
   western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
   could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
   majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
   was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
   life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
   greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
   lasting.
{2740}
   Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
   foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
   himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
   Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
   distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
   own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
   could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
   Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
   leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
   for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
   nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
   position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
   prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
   it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
   foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
   crash."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Chief Periods of European History,
      lecture 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Goths at Ravenna
      (Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4)._

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3)._

      _Cassiodorus,
      Letters,
      translated and edited by T. Hodgkin._

      _H. F. Stewart,
      Boethius,
      chapter 2._

ROME: A. D. 527-565.
   The reign of Justinian.

   "In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most
   famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,
   began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was
   born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is
   now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized
   into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial
   guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the
   Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men
   not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian
   origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,
   naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman
   character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was
   marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization
   of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last
   and grandest codification of Roman law.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

   But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary
   factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and
   ungrateful despotism.

      See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

   Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and
   fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of
   imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of
   war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the
   Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to
   full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its
   immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its
   supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of
   the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;

   Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
   Spain from the West Goths."

      _R. W. Church,
      The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 6._

   "In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign
   of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is
   presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.
   Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials
   of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most
   instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its
   legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring
   instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of
   the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been
   men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the
   agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The
   frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long
   looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which
   remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their
   own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any
   external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with
   which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The
   life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic
   form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was
   populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He
   conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings
   captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of
   civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave
   suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful
   master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to
   those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine
   and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of
   extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was
   profound."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 3, section 1._

      See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 528-556.
   The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;
      also, LAZICA.

ROME: A. D. 535-553.
   Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
   Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
   The long Gothic siege of Rome.
   The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
   The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.

   On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown
   passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,
   Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at
   the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power
   and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or
   Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had
   powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful
   Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and
   her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a
   short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,
   was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave
   encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,
   to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,
   Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored
   Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

   With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
   Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
   in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
   him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
   crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
   he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
   in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
   opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
   for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
{2741}
   It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
   through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
   fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
   Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
   for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
   Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
   surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
   entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
   Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
   to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
   employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
   forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
   150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
   busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
   fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
   improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
   at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
   endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
   discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
   was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
   Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
   useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
   how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
   sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
   army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
   nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
   by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
   Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
   completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
   hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
   to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
   with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
   capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
   of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
   unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
   cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
   it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.

      See MILAN: A. D. 539.

   But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned
   promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore
   the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true
   royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,
   by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.
   Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the
   quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave
   every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman
   armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,
   near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,
   besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern
   provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much
   friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of
   Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,
   Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the
   desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover
   what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.
   Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,
   and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising
   antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,
   in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to
   the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn
   around the city and a blockade established which soon produced
   famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the
   leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the
   17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his
   followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license
   to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of
   its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;
   but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a
   letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,
   then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he
   withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an
   adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving
   inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that
   Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and
   February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the
   end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the
   broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila
   was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.
   Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of
   their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was
   lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at
   Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered
   ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to
   them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made
   the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and
   exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a
   time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and
   stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were
   occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the
   tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of
   Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch
   Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a
   point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the
   army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The
   remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,
   too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the
   foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an
   end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it
   had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong
   places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The
   restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 16;
      book 5, chapters 1-24._

   "Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
   doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
   the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
   to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
   more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
   conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
   may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
   so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
   does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
   prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
   loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
   Roman power to win them back again.
{2742}
   I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
   It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
   the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
   still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
   say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
   is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
   Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
   employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
   unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
   the sixth century the power which won back the African
   province in their own day was the same power which had first
   won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
   Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Chief Periods of European History,
      lecture 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 41 and 43._

      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1)._

      _R. H. Wrightson,
      The Sancta Respublica Romana,
      chapters 5-7._

      _Lord Mahon,
      Life of Belisarius._

ROME: A. D. 541.
   Extinction of the office of Consul.

      See CONSUL, ROMAN.

ROME: A. D. 554-800.
   The Exarchate of Ravenna.

   On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy
   in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its
   throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,
   named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,
   being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.
   "Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow
   province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of
   the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire
   kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and
   military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye
   of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the
   Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country
   or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after
   the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic
   sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the
   pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the
   schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of
   Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the
   senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their
   estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the
   throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and
   measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the
   salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and
   grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light
   of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200
   years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
   Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive
   exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the
   full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical
   power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards
   consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the
   modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and
   Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a
   second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the
   hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of
   Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from
   the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,
   the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have
   included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first
   400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced
   along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with
   the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of
   Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the
   infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on
   the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with
   impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power
   of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the
   adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the
   Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,
   Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was
   oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,
   perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the
   Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing
   her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of
   commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally
   ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapters 43 and 45.

{2742a}
{2742b}

[IMAGE: EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D.
EAST ROMAN EMPIRE
RACE DIVISIONS
CELTIC PEOPLES.
SLAVIC PEOPLES.
LITHUANIAN PEOPLES.
URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES.
SCANDINAVIANS.
ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC.
THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR
IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.]

ROME: A. D. 565-628.
   Decline of the Eastern Empire.
   Thickening calamities.
   Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
   and Phocas.
   Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
   His campaigns against the Persians.

   "The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
   covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
   Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
   three emperors were men of much the same character as the
   predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
   official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
   emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
   empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
   the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
   more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
   and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
   successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
   [see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
   … Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
   the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
   river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
   to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
   electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
   they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
   factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
   himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
   fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
   refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
   than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
   the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
   The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
   sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
   the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
   empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
   murder of the legitimate ruler. …
{2743}
   Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
   and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
   fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
   with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
   friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
   ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
   Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
   pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
   professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
   different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
   Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
   burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
   in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
   untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
   penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
   of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
   blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
   after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
   succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
   with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
   Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
   reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
   foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
   Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
   emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
   entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
   against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
   monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
   bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
   Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
   Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
   the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
   was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
   Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
   capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
   Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
   almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
   Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
   … For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
   Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
   defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
   more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
   and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
   catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
   army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
   a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
   populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
   Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
   back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
   to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
   Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
   him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
   precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

   The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and
   the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real
   outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of
   the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six
   campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful
   attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and
   well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the
   foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for
   the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.
   His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,
   not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next
   campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the
   Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës
   at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria
   and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the
   Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw
   himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles
   to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but
   the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and
   Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he
   recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year
   of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final
   effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of
   operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main
   Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body
   under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and
   marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the
   Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic
   dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on
   the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each
   other across the water, and even contrived to exchange
   messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down
   the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of
   July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege
   implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land
   front of the city, but they were beaten back with great
   slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the
   Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege
   in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius
   was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the
   war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which
   he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops
   such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the
   Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended
   the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to
   Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,
   his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …
   The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the
   end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the
   commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it
   was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent
   out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,
   inviting them to embrace Islam."

      _C. W. C. Oman,
      The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
      chapters 9-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. B. Bury,
      History of the Later Roman Empire,
      book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ROME: A. D. 568-573.
   Invasion of the Lombards.
   Their conquest of northern Italy.
   Their kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.

{2744}

ROME: A. D. 590-640.
   Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
   Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.

   "The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of
   the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of
   Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and
   importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could
   exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom
   in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great
   founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show
   how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The
   invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an
   endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land
   from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial
   system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed
   a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal
   aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their
   bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the
   barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities
   of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the
   Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive
   eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The
   piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman
   Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and
   even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become
   the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands
   against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested
   to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came
   to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the
   suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural
   prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant
   Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the
   Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives
   added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical
   wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory
   I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look
   upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in
   spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the
   Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor
   showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into
   antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the
   difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at
   home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the
   heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious
   colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman
   missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and
   in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence
   to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he
   could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The
   English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of
   her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in
   her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred
   heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.
   Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,
   Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,
   subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in
   the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of
   Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of
   Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an
   apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a
   rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism
   it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay
   claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in
   its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate
   struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer
   was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its
   ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for
   no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with
   the Empire would give greater independence to his own
   position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."

      _M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Allies,
      The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.

ROME: A. D. 632-709.
   The Eastern Empire.
   Its first conflicts with Islam.
   Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.

ROME: A. D. 641-717.
   The Eastern Empire.

   The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
   Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
   the following reigns:

   Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
   Constans II. (641-668);
   Constantine IV. (668-685);
   Justinian II. (685-711);
   Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
   of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
   Philippicus (711-713);
   Anastasius II. (713-716);
   Theodosius III. (716-717).

ROME: A. D. 717-800.
   The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
   the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?

   "The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to
   exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius
   [A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by
   the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek
   Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if
   manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the
   commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have
   shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier
   period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form
   of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman
   empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the
   existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns
   of Constantinople continued to retain as long as
   Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …
   at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by
   the events which confined the authority of the imperial
   government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the
   majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption
   of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence
   of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the
   nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with
   the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed
   from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native
   population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,
   and religion, the central government of Constantinople was
   gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions
   of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …
{2745}
   Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and
   feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought
   correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,
   consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the
   final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the
   transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of
   the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal
   government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have
   terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of
   Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of
   Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who
   identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical
   forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the
   Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,
   nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their
   position, which makes the establishment of this new era
   historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family
   [A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed
   nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during
   many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the
   empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the
   Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the
   territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests
   exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek
   race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at
   Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It
   ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the
   mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,
   called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of
   which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly
   the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black
   Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,
   Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the
   Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia
   to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,
   were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …
   Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still
   acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of
   Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,
   but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities
   of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of
   Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient
   Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern
   Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,
   though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the
   Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."

      _G. Finlay,
      Greece under the Romans,
      chapter 5, sections 1 and 7._

   Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman
   says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested
   by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the
   Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the
   land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the
   fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of
   Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the
   Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however
   shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to
   1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the
   title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,
   from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest
   forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,
   and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is
   well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire
   keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles
   the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old
   Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince
   who reigns in the New."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Essays, series 3,
      page 244._

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

ROME: A. D. 728-733.
   Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
   The Iconoclastic controversy.
   Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
   Practical independence assumed by the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;
      and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

ROME: A. D. 751.
   Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

ROME: A. D. 754-774.
   Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
   Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
   Fall of the Lombard kingdom.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
      also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.

ROME: A. D. 800.
   Coronation of Charlemagne.
   The Empire revived.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

ROME: A. D. 843-951.
   The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
   and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.

      See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
      FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.

ROME: A. D. 846-849.
   Attack by the Saracens.

   "A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter
   the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,
   in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the
   Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a
   trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and
   St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and
   of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them
   against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the
   Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their
   rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of
   the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly
   offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they
   pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by
   the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the
   interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo
   IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy
   as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its
   walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron
   chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,
   and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought
   their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the
   Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a
   terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians
   in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small
   number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the
   Romans and their allies.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52._

{2746}

ROME: A. D. 903-964.
   The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
   Interference of Otho the Great.
   His revival of the Empire.

   "During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of
   Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,
   governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the
   barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.
   Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for
   her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which
   she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of
   Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,
   Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman
   barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,
   at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over
   the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a
   fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her
   daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate
   by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally
   bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a
   contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the
   see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a
   son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no
   less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a
   young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first
   obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric
   of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a
   distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the
   papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope
   in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of
   fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which
   he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of
   Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he
   was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed
   the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was
   obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a
   natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her
   former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and
   Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,
   was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother
   by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of
   Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and
   cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in
   which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.
   "Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed
   consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the
   republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a
   guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the
   popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome
   against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.
   Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and
   senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights
   of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two
   sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates
   and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,
   who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo
   VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of
   this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered
   beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and
   had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years
   afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,
   young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already
   acknowledged him as patrice."

      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      introduction, period 6._

   "He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.
   956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to
   the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of
   a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated
   the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth
   in the account to have brought down the scandal of the
   pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,
   which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the
   name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on
   ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom
   with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."

      _Abbé J. E. Darras,
      General History of the Catholic Church,
      period 4, chapter 7._

   Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of
   Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of
   soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho
   came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of
   Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by
   the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial
   young pope who crowned him to be deposed.

      See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;
      and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.

   John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon
   after, A. D. 964.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 5, chapter 12._

   The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
   fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."

ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
   Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
   Chronic disorganization of the city.

   "It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to
   establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous
   scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of
   things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto
   III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but
   transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an
   emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself
   the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and
   afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was
   occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.
   to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy
   no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one
   exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy
   atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's
   guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid
   the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in
   papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the
   character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician
   families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;
   and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or
   Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But
   the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast
   possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or
   industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely
   upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits
   derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the
   unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the
   5th to the 15th century."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      chapter. 3._

      See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.

{2746a}

NINTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
801.  Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805.  Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
      Creation of the Austrian march.

806.  Division of the Empire by Charlemagne
      between his sons formally planned.

809.  Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812.  Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
      siege of Bagdad.

814.  Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
      his only surviving son.

816.  Death of Pope Leo III.;
      election of Stephen IV.

817.  Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826.  Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle
      to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.

821.  Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830.  First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

833.  Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
      the "Field of Lies";
      deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
      Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834.  Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835.  Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht
      by the Northmen.

836.  Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
      Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.

837.  First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838.  Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
      the Amorian War.

840.  Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
      Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.

841.  Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
      their capture of Rouen.

842.  The Oath of Strasburg.

843.  Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
      Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
      Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of
      Louis the German and Charles the Bald,
      which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.

845.  First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
      their destruction of Hamburg.

846.  Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847.  Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849.  Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).

852.  Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854.  Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855.  Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war
      between his sons.
      First footing of the Danes established in England.

851.  Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
      and elevation of Photius.

860.  Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]

861.  Formation of the Duchy of France;
      origin of the House of Capet.
      Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863.  Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
      Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864.  Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865.  First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866.  Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871.  Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
      surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
      Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

815.  Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
      imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876.  The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

817.  Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
      and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
      Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878.  Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880.  Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
      battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
      Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
      Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]

881.  Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884.  Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
      under Charles the Fat.

885.  Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

881.  Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888.  Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the
      Empire of the Franks;
      founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
      The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of
      Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889.  Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890.  Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891.  Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894.  Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

890.  Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898.  Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole
      king of France.

899.  Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
      accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900.  Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.

{2746b}

TENTH CENTURY.

CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.

A.D.
901.  Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
      of his son, Edward the Elder.
      Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904.  Sergius III. made Pope;
      beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909.  Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910.  Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

911.  Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing
      the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
      Conrad the Franconian.
      Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
      cession of Normandy to Rollo.

912.  Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

914.  Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan,
      Theodora. [Uncertain date.]

916.  Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

919.  Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
      to the kingship of Germany.
      Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

923.  The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
      by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924.  Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
      truce agreed upon for nine years.
      Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
      Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.

925.  Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
      and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928.  Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.
      by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]

929.  Death of Charles the Simple in France.

931.  John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia,
      made Pope. [Uncertain date.]

932.  Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

936.  Election of Otho, called the Great,
      to the throne of Germany.
      Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of
      the Carolingians to the French throne.

937.  Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
      at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
      Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

940.  Death of the English king, Ethelstan,
      and accession of his brother Edmund.

946.  Death of the English king, Edmund,
      and accession of his brother Edred.

951.  First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
      founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954.  Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
      succeeding him.
      Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
      called "d'Outremer";
      accession of Lothaire.

955.  Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
      their decisive defeat on the Lech.
      Death of the English king, Edred,
      and accession of his nephew, Edwig.

956.  Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

957.  Revolt against the English king Edwig;
      division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
      [Uncertain date.]

959.  Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
      Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

961.  The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

962.  Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
      revival of the Western Empire.

963.  Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
      election of Leo VIII.

964.  Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
      return and death of John XII.;
      siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965.  Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
      election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

967.  Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date.]

969.  Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
      by John Zimisces, his successor.

972.  Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
      to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
      Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

973.  Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
      accession of Otho II.

974.  Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

975.  Election of Pope Benedict VII.
      Death of the English king Edgar;
      accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979.  Death of Edward the Martyr;
      accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]

983.  Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
      accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the
      regency of his mother, Theophano.
      First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

984.  Election of Pope John XIV.

985.  Murder of Pope John XIV.;
      election of Pope John XV.

986.  Death of Lothaire, king of France;
      accession of his son Louis V.

987.  Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
      election of Hugh Capet.

988.  Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Cherson acquired by the Romans.

991.  Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
      battle of Maldon.

996.  Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
      accession of his son, Robert II.
      Death of Pope John XV.;
      election of Gregory V.
      Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997.  Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
      Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
      expulsion of the Pope.

998.  Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
      Excommunication of King Robert of France.

999.  Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
      as Sylvester II.

1000. Expectations of the end of the world.
      Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
      Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
      by the Pope.
      Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.

{2747}

ROME: A. D. 1077-1102.
   Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
   Surrender to Henry IV.
   Terrible Norman visitation.

   Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at
   Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and
   claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him),
   entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had
   recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against
   him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For
   three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of
   Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by
   stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer
   came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the
   Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the
   siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say)
   gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took
   refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry,
   bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up,
   was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the
   coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his
   head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard,
   the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to
   defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste
   and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its
   walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of
   their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans
   surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They
   made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to
   receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city,
   treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging,
   violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The
   Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and
   nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day
   they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at
   advantage, from their possession of the houses and their
   knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority;
   the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the
   word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed
   wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend
   themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by
   hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut
   from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not
   without success, in saving the principal churches. It is
   probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek
   nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this
   capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion
   of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over
   the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many
   thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried
   into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew
   his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with
   him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 7, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. Villemain,
      Life of Gregory VII.,
      book 9._

      See, also,
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

ROME: A. D. 1122-1250.
   Conflict of the Popes with the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
   The Republic of Arnold of Brescia.

   Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in
   Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a
   religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious
   doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was
   unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest
   monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular
   religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and
   apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all
   their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian
   republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In
   1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before
   him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion
   against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the
   larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of
   the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public,
   under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of
   elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the
   church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle.
   The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes,
   and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began
   again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic
   maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the
   Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St.
   Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The
   death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave
   the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an
   interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and
   the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit
   of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican
   institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The
   republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master
   in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in
   the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the
   imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in
   some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable
   dispute.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 8. chapters 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 6._

ROME: A. D. 1155.
   Tumult at the coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

ROME: A. D. 1167.
   The taking of the city by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

ROME: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
   in the States of the Church.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

ROME: A. D. 1215.
   The beginning in Italy of the strife of
   the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

{2748}

ROME: 13-14th Centuries.
   The turbulence of the Roman nobles.
   The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.

   "In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the
   feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the
   people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her
   numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and
   dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of
   the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their
   castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society
   and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of
   Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons,
   who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without
   the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the
   nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The
   barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their
   palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their
   private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their
   vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were
   aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have
   been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers,
   who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled
   themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of
   revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the
   distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the
   nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and
   Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had
   obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the
   prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the
   Roman families which have failed at different periods, or
   those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to
   the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani
   discover their name in the generous act of breaking or
   dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is
   more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies
   the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of
   their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine
   race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete
   surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the
   first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the
   estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have
   been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended
   from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the
   peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses
   of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the
   thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna]
   was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in
   arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was
   elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a
   triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the
   title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis
   of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so
   partial to their family that he has been delineated in
   satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow
   pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the
   displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two
   cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of
   Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by
   his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade
   against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated;
   their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by
   the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and
   after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal
   seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of
   perpetual desolation. …

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348].

   Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses,
   of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which
   were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the
   deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and
   disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors;
   and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by
   this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in
   fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and
   esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy
   of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the
   ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna
   exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of
   Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus,
   as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent
   person who is only known as the father of their race. But they
   were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number
   and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers,
   the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the
   elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of
   their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of
   Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused
   the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle
   and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the
   two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and
   nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the
   retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the
   vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated
   by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival
   senators. By their private hostilities the city and country
   were desolated."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 69._

    "Had things been left to take their natural course, one of
    these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini,
    would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have
    established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and
    Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had
    once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of
    the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of
    feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development
    as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."

      _J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 16._

ROME: A. D. 1300.
   The Jubilee.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.
   Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome
   and settlement at Avignon.
   The "Babylonish Captivity."

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348, to 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1312.
   Resistance to the entry and coronation of Henry VII.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

ROME: A. D. 1328.
   Imperial coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

{2749}

ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
   The revolution of Rienzi, the last Tribune.

   "The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the
   Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars
   had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred
   hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The
   real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt
   in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong
   palaces within. The principal among them were masters of
   different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the
   Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city,
   towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended
   their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the
   Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The
   Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with
   the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which
   bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the
   nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified
   cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination,
   had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled
   city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were
   at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare
   occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the
   citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers,
   travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this
   period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the
   receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was
   then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the
   Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a
   peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he
   brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited
   imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his
   nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of
   widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became
   blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his
   brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his
   being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always
   been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was
   considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and
   as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous
   inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of
   antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to
   the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities
   that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily,
   and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led
   them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the
   Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the
   hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No
   remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an
   insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen
   good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and
   invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement;
   Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent
   participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy
   to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such
   was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi.
   The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear
   of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population
   of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of
   Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope
   at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with
   the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the
   Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in
   the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly
   enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was
   not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the
   filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the
   new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi
   protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the
   council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of
   indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him
   in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him
   the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never
   appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and
   must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo
   minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations
   to the people more impressive, he made use of large
   allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious
   testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his
   forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the
   Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost,
   namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had
   heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night.
   On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head
   uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards
   were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This
   time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his
   love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was
   ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which
   were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly
   speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people
   from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he
   proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il
   buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the
   people were invested, with the property and government of the
   city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of
   the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the
   nobility deprived of what they considered as their property,
   to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more
   complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was
   clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full
   powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he
   had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and
   preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed
   as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy.
   The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators
   expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such
   rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in
   his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy
   Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the
   Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar
   should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate
   accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared
   to be.
{2750}
   During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the
   more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to
   Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the
   order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied
   that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of
   the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be
   rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that
   proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The
   next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come,
   to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw
   to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son
   of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the
   Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and
   insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in
   close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the
   people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and
   obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani,
   and many others, came after him and followed his example.
   Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course
   to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and
   imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by
   Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on
   the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate
   such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which
   was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property.
   He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements
   with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. …
   For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the
   city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the
   ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous.
   … He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era.
   The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian
   Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in
   his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico,
   secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony,
   refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little
   cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an
   army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so
   suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered
   unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and
   imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical
   extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his
   ruin."

      _Prof. De Vericour,
      Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes
      Dublin University Magazine, 1860._

      _Eclectic Magazine,
      September, 1860._

   "Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp
   of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with
   ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He
   desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as
   well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a
   splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of
   which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and
   Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for
   any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three
   points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this
   is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better
   of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. …
   Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had
   discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and
   declared that he would cut off the heads of all those
   concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought
   forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely
   families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their
   execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only
   pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most
   important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were
   these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began
   seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government.
   They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the
   country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune,
   who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by
   threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for
   action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing
   against them. But after a few days, during which he did
   nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he
   returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and
   received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to
   crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he
   endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out
   the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance,
   he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets
   of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched
   through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and
   on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle
   St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was
   so great, that it was not till three days after that the
   nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that
   Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival
   pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo.
   There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled,
   and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a
   nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been
   arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was
   concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was
   friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to
   Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of
   the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and
   confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power.
   Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi
   returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He
   was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power.
   But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who
   sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all
   the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him,
   and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret
   of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October
   1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol
   with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on
   the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the
   standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But
   the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to
   fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of
   the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the
   burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At
   this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where
   are you going?' He saw that all was lost.
{2751}
   But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of
   heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his
   disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the
   Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base
   of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call
   upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous
   cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked
   around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of
   silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an
   artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his
   eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike
   in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his
   corpse."

      _W. W. Story,
      Castle St. Angelo,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5)._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 70._

ROME: A. D. 1367-1369.
   Temporary return of Urban V. from Avignon.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.
   Return of the Papal court.
   Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.
   Battles in the city.
   Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.

ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.
   Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.
   Sacking of the Vatican.
   Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.
   Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.
   The pontificate of Nicolas V.
   Building of the Vatican Palace and
   founding of the Vatican Library.
   The Porcaro revolt.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

ROME: A. D. 1492-1503.
   Under the Borgias.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

ROME: A. D. 1494.
   Charles VIII. and the French army in the city.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

ROME: A. D. 1526.
   The city taken and the Vatican plundered
   by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

ROME: A. D. 1527.
   The capture and the sacking of the city
   by the army of Constable Bourbon.
   Captivity of the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; 1527; and 1527-1529.

ROME: A. D. 1537-1563.
   Inclinations towards the Reformation.
   Catholic reaction.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

ROME: A. D. 1600-1656.
   The great families and the Roman population.

   "A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the
   papal throne; the families already established imposed
   restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the
   self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the
   ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation,
   sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. …
   There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman
   races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The
   Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no
   peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom,
   in which they had not been included by name. But however
   powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they
   certainly owed their importance in those now before us to
   their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under
   Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it
   were, two great factions, or associations of families. The
   Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and
   Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was
   the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the
   seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble
   families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five
   of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were
   permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally
   traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side
   of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the
   cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the
   pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed
   the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the
   aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family.
   There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial
   appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to
   being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria.
   Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine
   Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to
   more or less consideration by these means, according to their
   good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no
   longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of
   gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected
   themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi,
   and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind,
   families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome,
   not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma
   and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still
   extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a
   most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in
   which that population was formed. Not that its increase was
   upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized
   to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about
   110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above
   120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another
   circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At
   an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly
   fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to
   50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to
   more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the
   court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no
   permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering,
   the population became fixed into settled families. This began
   to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but
   took place more particularly during the first half of the
   seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and
   on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the
   point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around
   the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen
   to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor
   external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes
   drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life
   of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous
   permanent population arose in the city."

      _L. Ranke.
      History of the Popes,
      book 8, section 7 (volume 2)._

ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.
   French intrigues and occupation of the city.
   Formation of the Roman Republic.
   Expulsion of the Pope.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).

{2752}

ROME: A. D. 1798 (November).
   Brief expulsion of the French by the Neapolitans.

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

ROME: A. D. 1799.
   Overthrow of the Roman Republic.
   Expulsion of the French.

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

ROME: A. D. 1800.
   The Papal government re-established by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.
   Captivity of Pius VII.
   French occupation.
   Declared to be a free and imperial city.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1810.
   The title of King of Rome given to Napoleon's son.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1813.
   Papal Concordat with Napoleon.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1814.
   Occupation by Murat for the Allies.
   Return of the Pope.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814:
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

ROME: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the works of art taken by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.
   Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.
   His breach with the extremists.
   Revolution, and flight of the Pope.
   Intervention of France.
   Garibaldi's defense of the city.
   Its capture and occupation by the French.
   Overthrow of the Roman Republic.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.
   First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
   Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.
   Garibaldi's attempt.
   His defeat at Mentana.
   Italian troops in the city.
   The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.
   End of Papal Sovereignty.
   Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870;
      and PAPACY: A. D. 1870.

   ----------ROME: End--------

ROMERS-WAALE, Naval battle of (1574).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ROMMANY.

      See GYPSIES.

ROMULUS, Legendary founder of Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS,
   The last Roman Emperor of the old line,
   in the West, A. D. 475-476.

RONCAGLIA, The Diets of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.

RONCESVALLES, The ambuscade of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

ROOD, Holy (or Black Rood) of Scotland.

      See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

ROOF OF THE WORLD.

   The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor
   range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of
   the World.

      _T. E. Gordon,
      The Roof of the World,
      chapter 9._

ROOSEBECK OR ROSEBECQUE, Battle of (1382).

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

ROOT AND BRANCH BILL, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

RORKE'S DRIFT, Defense of (1879).

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Recovery by the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646; and 1648-1652.

ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1808.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

ROSBACH, OR ROSSBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ROSECRANS, General W. S.:
   Command in West Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
      and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

   Command of the Army of the Mississippi.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   Battle of Stone River.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

   The Tullahoma campaign.

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

   Chickamauga.
   Chattanooga campaign.
   Displacement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)

   Command in Missouri.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

ROSES, Wars of the.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

ROSETTA STONE.

   "The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the
   year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while
   digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains
   a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at
   Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is
   engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three
   different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand
   old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic
   character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek.
   But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two
   former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an
   impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the
   veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to
   the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be
   arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied
   all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to
   solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly
   brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was
   Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way
   the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the
   instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour
   to the nineteenth century."

      _A. Mariette-Bey,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt (Itinéraire)
      page 29._

      See, also, HIEROGLYPHICS.

ROSICRUCIANS.
ILLUMINATI.

   "About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little
   book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was
   entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable
   Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and
   magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue
   between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of
   antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general
   reform in those evil times.
{2753}
   The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely
   a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour
   everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then
   announces the actual existence of such an association. One
   Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched
   him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have
   communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight
   disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place
   called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further,
   that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and
   within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption,
   though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The
   surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and
   devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform,
   to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither
   name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true
   Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no
   political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their
   sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human
   suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of
   learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love.
   Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them
   the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by
   their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in
   comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle.
   But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose
   of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could
   give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear
   them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a
   young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of
   the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try
   and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the
   Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious
   purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot
   be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and
   abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all
   good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered
   throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united
   systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed
   in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret,
   when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as
   unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search
   instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed
   letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary
   brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate,
   where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives
   and qualifications for entrance into their number, and
   sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements.
   Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness
   and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so
   many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with
   concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his
   artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A
   swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and
   found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä
   dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book
   after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had
   so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in
   earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had
   less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders
   appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes
   says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The
   name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing
   every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the
   philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In
   general usage the term is associated more especially with that
   branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of
   the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical
   tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and
   Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret
   societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable
   kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to
   Protestant societies, others were the implements of the
   Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance;
   others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed
   police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and
   Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of
   rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of
   mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the
   profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The
   best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the
   hands of the police."

      _R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics,
      book 8, chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volume 4, pages 483-504._

      _T. Frost,
      The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 8._

ROSLIN, Battle of.

   One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of
   independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.

ROSSBACH,
ROSBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

ROSSBRUNN, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

ROSTOCK:
   The founding of the city.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

ROSY CROSS, The Honourable Order of the.

      See ROSICRUCIANS.

ROTENNU,
RUTENNU,
RETENNU, The.

   "The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites
   [17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the
   Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river
   Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or
   Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all
   Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined
   territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already
   possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but
   there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined
   limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city
   of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most
   important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu
   confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan
   people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."

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

ROTHIERE, Battle of La.

      See FRANCE A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

{2754}

ROTOMAGUS.
   Modern Rouen.

      See BELGÆ.

RÖTTELN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ROTTEN BOROUGHS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; and 1830-1832.

ROTTWEIL: Siege and capture by the French (1643).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

   ----------ROUEN: Start--------

ROUEN:
   Origin of the city and name.

      See BELGÆ.

ROUEN: A. D. 841.
   First destructive visit of the Northmen.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 841.

ROUEN: A. D. 845.
   Second capture by the Northmen.

      See PARIS: A. D.845.

ROUEN: A. D. 876-91 I.
   Rollo's settlement.

      See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

ROUEN: A. D. 1418-1419.
   Siege and capture by Henry V. of England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

ROUEN: A. D. 1431.
   The burning of the Maid of Orleans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ROUEN: A. D. 1449.
   Recovery from the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

ROUEN: A. D. 1562.
   Occupied by the Huguenots and retaken by the Catholics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

ROUEN: A. D. 1591-1592.
   Siege by Henry IV., raised by the Duke of Parma.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ROUEN: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

   ----------ROUEN: End--------

ROUM,
ICONIUM,
NICÆA, The Sultans of.

      See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.

ROUMANI,
ROMÚNI, The.

      See DACCA: A. D. 102-106.

ROUMANIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

ROUMELIA, Eastern.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1878,
      TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.

ROUND TABLE, Knights of the.

      See ARTHUR, KING.

ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.

   "At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries
   (some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in
   the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular
   buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in
   mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern
   antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both
   as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been
   satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and
   erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. …
   These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with
   a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and
   other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes,
   and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were
   four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of
   the largest bells then used in Ireland."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 115._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Bryant,
      Celtic Ireland,
      chapter 7._

ROUNDHEADS.

   The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil
   war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their
   hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held
   to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the
   Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied
   the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens
   which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of
   December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the
   throats of these round-headed dogs."

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mrs. Hutchinson,
      Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642)._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER).

ROUSSEAU, and educational reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1762.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1639.
   Situation of the county.
   Invasion by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1037-1640.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1642.
   French conquest.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ROUTIERS The.

      See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

ROXOLANI, The.

   A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently
   the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards
   encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the
   barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were
   prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus
   Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and
   Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and
   partly by extermination.

ROYAL ROAD OF ANCIENT PERSIA, The.

   "Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from
   Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the
   'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed
   along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of
   communication for all government business. … It is an accepted
   fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire
   were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time,
   and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,'
   from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the
   Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to
   Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century,
   B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great
   road like this before 500; they only used the previously
   existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid
   some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have
   measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of
   the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar
   erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."

      _W. M. Ramsay,
      Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
      part 1, chapter 2._

ROYAL TOUCH, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

RUBICON, Cæsar's passage of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

RUCANAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

RUDOLPH,
   King of France, A. D. 923-936.

   Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor
   (the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.

   Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;
   King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.

{2755}

RUGBY SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

RUGII, The.

   A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the
   extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to
   the Isle of Rugen.

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._

   In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of
   Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be
   the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.
   There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the
   Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number
   Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8._

RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.

      See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

RUMP, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

RUNJIT SINGH,
RANJIT SINGH,
   The conquests of.

      See SIKHS.

RUNNYMEDE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

RUPERT, OR ROBERT (of the Palatine).

   King of Germany, A. D. 1400-1410.

RUPERT'S LAND.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

RUSCINO.

   The ancient name of modern Roussillon.

RUSSELL, Lord John, Ministries of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846; 1851-1852; 1865-1868.

RUSSELL, Lord William, Execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

   ----------RUSSIA: Start--------

RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
   Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.

   "'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian
   chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th
   century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded
   tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the
   Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the
   Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he
   continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the
   sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern
   themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose
   against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and
   they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each
   other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and
   judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the
   Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they
   were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others
   Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or
   Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants
   of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the
   Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich,
   but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over
   us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and
   they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the
   eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus,
   near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the
   Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians;
   they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the
   Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years
   Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the
   government and divided the towns among his men, to one
   Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is
   Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian
   state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment,
   it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as
   a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus
   was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe;
   this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have
   crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time,
   was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present
   Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year
   two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and
   Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to
   Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they
   arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time
   were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there,
   and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty
   years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by
   Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master
   of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time
   Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called,
   remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of
   the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first
   became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from
   the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or
   twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured
   to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was
   even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in
   the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian
   chronicles."

      _V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55._

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 18._

RUSSIA: A. D. 865.
   First attack of the Russians on Constantinople.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.

RUSSIA: A. D. 865-900.
   Early relations with the Byzantine Empire.

   "The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in
   865 would probably have been followed by a series of
   plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and
   Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the
   Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters
   of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in
   the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold
   Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude
   warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian
   people was then in a more advanced state of society than the
   mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of
   the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of
   Britain and Gaul were serfs.
{2756}
   The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to
   influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the
   military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat
   in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to
   Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite
   Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no
   inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,
   though the Christian religion continued long after better
   known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.
   The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and
   Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of
   Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The
   first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the
   Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The
   intercourse increased from that time."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 2, section 1._

RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.
   Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.

RUSSIA: 10TH Century.
   The introduction of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 10TH CENTURY.

RUSSIA: A. D. 980-1054.
   Family divisions and their consequence.

   "Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I.
   (1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was
   respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons
   conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy
   passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of
   Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and
   impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia,
   where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the
   14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."

      _S. Menzies,
      History of Europe,
      chapter. 36._

RUSSIA: A. D. 988.
   Acquisition of Cherson.

      See CHERSON: A. D. 988.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.
   The early Russian territory and its divisions.

   "It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed
   mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of
   Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was
   afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder
   Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper
   course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of
   Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not
   to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of
   the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish
   and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th
   century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided
   among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the
   superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century
   the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on
   the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the
   upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second
   Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective
   princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among
   commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish
   tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more
   precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was
   out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was
   to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk,
   Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose
   on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the
   commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and
   Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which
   afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile
   in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and
   Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as
   Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural
   river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting
   off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and
   Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the
   Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known
   only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia
   they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped
   absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol.
   Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never
   incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria
   were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was
   overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the
   true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 11, section 2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.
   Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,
   embracing a large area of Russian territory.

      See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1239.
   Mongol conquest.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
   Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.
   Two centuries of Tartar domination.
   Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.
   Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,
   the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.

   "Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its
   exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The
   great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being
   the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a
   Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive
   epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the
   North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.
   It had profited by the example, and had emulated the
   prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also
   to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to
   acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had
   been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to
   win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or
   Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed
   those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its
   independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander
   Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already
   given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him
   among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and
   forests which surrounded it and which had already once
   deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not
   continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at
   once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of
   their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of
   servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had
   conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon
   the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but
   they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian
   Princes. …
{2757}
   Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which
   this period has imprinted upon the national character. The
   Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian
   princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and
   extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of
   the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing
   punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of
   drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;
   and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many
   monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their
   origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West
   were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave
   had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had
   left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All
   links of the connection that had bound these regions to the
   Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,
   Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were
   gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,
   starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,
   was destined to overshadow Russia.

      See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.

   The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain
   unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz
   or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or
   feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of
   their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has
   never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania
   acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide
   empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the
   union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand
   Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian
   princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The
   ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is
   parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two
   centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a
   nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his
   throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary
   succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to
   solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns
   of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the
   Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV.,
   that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by
   weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the
   Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it
   had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided
   by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to
   establish their independent power; and the Russians had at
   length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his
   enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated
   as having checked the divisions which civil strife and
   appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also
   gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow,
   now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that
   by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his
   victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name
   of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had
   united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians
   turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of
   Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They
   did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to
   hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of
   Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and
   they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the
   Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the
   successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp
   upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand
   Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend
   his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or
   seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the
   country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became
   enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing
   weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for
   the final independence that was accomplished by the close of
   the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of
   a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long
   sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations,
   and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the
   East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The
   Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or
   Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik
   and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire
   reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the
   wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a
   long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded
   Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate
   predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and
   the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which
   are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great
   city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a
   distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had
   accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated,
   and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But
   they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they
   had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to
   reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to
   repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves
   into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their
   independence was taken from them. Their assembly was
   dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was
   carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due
   to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have
   brought glory to the Russian people.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

   Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of
   domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly
   advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast
   a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to
   acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made
   tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to
   the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were
   acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had
   preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of
   Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …
{2758}
   At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their
   greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,
   and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,
   were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had
   already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to
   recover the ancient capital of its princes."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      chapters 8-14 (volume 1)._

RUSSIA: 15th Century.
   Effects of the Tartar domination.
   Sources of autocracy.

   "The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th
   century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature,
   after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The
   Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which
   felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as
   they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north.
   They did not settle there. These regions were too European to
   suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for
   tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received
   their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as
   fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of
   a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was
   to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were
   compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often
   encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their
   investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by
   becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this
   price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks
   to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was
   nation put through such a school of patience and abject
   submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing
   domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities
   withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians
   faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance
   had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by
   time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic
   gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the
   climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature
   in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to
   submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed
   these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by
   history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and
   all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to
   the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a
   stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment
   to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into
   one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It
   was then that the conception sprang up which still links the
   quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and
   makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon
   Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two
   parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it
   strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage
   system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign
   oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself
   suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and
   dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority.
   The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered
   them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians
   was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every
   germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic,
   was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the
   'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than
   500 years, still is the basis of the state."

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians,
      part 1, book 4, chapter 3._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
   From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
   The Poles at Moscow.
   Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.

   "Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan
   himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his
   lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in
   history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and
   ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius
   or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting
   as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and
   Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The
   natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,
   through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for
   political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers
   into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,
   warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to
   civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it
   was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of
   the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes
   called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having
   finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had
   been made to enter into relations with various European
   nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and
   settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia
   increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the
   first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the
   third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners
   in the service of the English company of 'merchant
   adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own
   language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that
   time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,
   cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike
   reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the
   Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting
   half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making
   merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for
   his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up
   the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death
   of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at
   Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir
   Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the
   English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into
   prison. He was liberated through the representations of
   another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to
   excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse
   between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the
   national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors
   of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the
   influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous
   policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations
   with Western Europe, was resumed. …
{2759}
   Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the
   first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may
   seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was
   chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly
   representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of
   succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne
   had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as
   the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,
   married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her
   powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the
   Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of
   4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland
   interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the
   power of the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

   Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A
   butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin,
   whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures
   in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national
   army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski,
   to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched
   together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital
   of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of
   statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. …
   Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the
   cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret
   and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for
   refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish
   prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his
   arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried
   away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and
   was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to
   Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the
   throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's
   patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the
   patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who
   had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years'
   imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he
   had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor,
   and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of
   Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say
   about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances
   having once been set forth under which he was elected to the
   vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis
   Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the
   Great."

      _H. S. Edwards,
      The Romanoffs,
      chapters 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      chapters 13-19 (volume 1)._

      _P. Mérimée,
      Demetrius the Imposter._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
   Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar,
   by the Grand Prince of Moscow.

   "In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible]
   ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his
   coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of
   Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer
   answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who
   counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes.
   The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic
   language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa,
   Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and
   Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the
   Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and
   the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in
   the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he
   was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium;
   through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the
   Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. …
   We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the
   Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from
   Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox
   sovereigns of Byzantium."

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, chapter 15._

   "This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,'
   as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old
   Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic
   translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on
   the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In
   Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it
   in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and
   Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, page 125, foot-note._

   "Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The
   title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns.
   We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the
   sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the
   Scythians.'"

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      page 213, foot-note._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
   First collision with the Turks.
   Their repulse from Astrakhan.-
   Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.
   Peace with the Porte.

   At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the
   Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and
   frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but
   the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold
   genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of
   a project, which, if successful, would have barred the
   southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman
   power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the
   shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the
   rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish
   armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the
   intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river
   into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the
   Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian
   power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to
   realise the great project entertained it was necessary to
   occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and
   20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a
   cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,
   and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000
   pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and
   secure the great work at its western extremity. But the
   generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern
   master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of
   Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with
   considerable loss.
{2760}
   And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,
   came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and
   put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that
   the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.
   An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was
   also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,
   dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether
   from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on
   a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the
   Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of
   the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even
   without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman
   expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea
   made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,
   and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent
   an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to
   complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose
   that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between
   the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably
   received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities
   between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a
   century."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 11._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1577-1580.
   Conquests by the Poles.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1578-1579.
   Yermac's conquest of Siberia.

      See SIBERIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.
   War with Sweden.
   Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.
   Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the
   King of Poland to the Czar.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
   The great schism, known as the Rascol.

   "In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the
   Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who,
   finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders
   caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best
   Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655,
   and the following year, he summoned two councils of the
   church, at which the newly translated service-books were
   promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this
   change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a
   number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the
   old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of
   the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia,
   who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her
   history."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 6._

   "The most important innovation, which afterwards became the
   symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to
   the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross.
   The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held
   two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the
   Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three
   fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the
   Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly
   benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to
   ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for
   priestly benedictions only, he re-established the
   three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it,
   'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion.
   Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the
   round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral,
   four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven
   wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the
   processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of
   first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the
   Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points
   Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek
   mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he
   directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung
   thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then
   only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah,
   its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we
   should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling
   of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in
   consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the
   commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name
   Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus,
   without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected
   this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was
   this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were
   concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great
   religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the
   Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a
   name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the
   trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and
   women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It
   was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent
   the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack,
   or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands
   chopped off."

      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Peasantry
      (American edition),
      pages 237-239._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Capture of Azov.
   First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1689.
   Accession of Peter the Great.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704.
   Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge;
   his apprenticeship to the useful arts;
   his civilizing work in Muscovy.

   "Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns,
   wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but
   no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in
   order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch
   of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He
   left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few]
   years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as
   if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he
   sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the
   States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he
   enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of
   the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics.
   At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics
   as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the
   art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and
   examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his
   observation.
{2761}
   From thence he passed over into England, where having
   perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to
   Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to
   the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of
   travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have
   willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia,
   with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every
   kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first
   time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea
   and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture,
   were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges;
   academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were
   brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the
   people were gradually changed, though not without some
   difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true
   nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were
   abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and
   the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last
   enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than
   Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without
   opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other
   innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous
   clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them,
   though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them
   formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the
   State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what
   was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia
   of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what
   the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short
   time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called
   Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops,
   more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors,
   consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at
   Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The
   pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but
   this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and
   extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners,
   among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it
   below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer,
   and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the
   nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an
   officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last,
   finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke
   the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly
   the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last
   kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian
   gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought
   without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than
   a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of
   conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the
   example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for
   he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer,
   and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the
   gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their
   order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a
   regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from
   the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good
   engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of
   naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a
   good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these
   arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great
   dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a
   bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be
   built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed
   to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking
   that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably
   succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at
   his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the
   method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the
   art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case
   of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was
   well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was
   always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his
   wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and
   natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring
   to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the
   depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks,
   causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering
   accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he
   himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot,
   the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of
   Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of
   Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established
   offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and
   Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All
   his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he
   spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and
   magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been
   the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and
   industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He
   established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of
   Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the
   face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a
   shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have
   been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of
   humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners,
   and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many
   virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a
   barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute
   sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the
   midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off
   heads."

      _Voltaire,
      History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
      book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. L. Motley,
      Peter the Great._

      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      volume 1._

      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 4, chapter 4._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.
   The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
   Possession of Azov confirmed.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
   Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark
   against Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Defeat at Narva.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1701-1706.
   War with Charles XII. of Sweden in Poland and Livonia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

{2762}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
   The founding of St. Petersburg.

   "Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council
   of war was convened to consider the question of defending and
   utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be
   better to strengthen the little fort which had just been
   taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the
   sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the
   Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four
   branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of
   islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with
   forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water
   during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish
   fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at
   the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher
   ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by
   the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was
   still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a
   fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron
   saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent
   from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers.
   Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in
   Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped
   up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts
   on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to
   Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least
   2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the
   heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At
   the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church
   was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St.
   Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a
   small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five
   feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles,
   and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set
   in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence
   in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building
   erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in
   this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the
   curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among
   the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year
   covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too
   ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St.
   Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by
   sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye.
   It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It
   was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to
   the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he
   had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he
   would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the
   war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of
   Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus
   secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial
   port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the
   Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress
   were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of
   logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy
   soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the
   surrender of the city, there would not have been much to
   regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his
   capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from
   Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's
   attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or
   ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg
   became in fact the capital of the Empire."

      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      chapter 46 (volume 2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.
   Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His intrigues with the Turks.
   Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.
   Russian conquests in the north.

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.
   The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.
   Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.
   Finland given up.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

[IMAGE:
CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715
AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.

FRANCE.[IN 1643]
ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH POSSESSIONS.
HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP.
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

[IMAGE:
EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.
SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.
SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.
RUSSIA.
POLAND.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN
BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]

RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
   The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
   Fruitless war with Turkey.
   Depredations in the Crimea.

   "The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
   powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
   of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
   with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
   Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
   of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
   to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
   Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
   succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
   was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
   authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
   brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
   which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
   founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
   expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
   written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
   the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
   accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
   Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
   accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
   Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
   Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
   mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
   … and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
   was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
   reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
   disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
   him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
   to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
   been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
   Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
   Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
   Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
   of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
   to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
   Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
   herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
   especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
   to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
   vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
{2763}
   Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
   regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
   primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
   of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
   altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
   four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."

      _W. R. Morfill,
      The Story of Russia,
      chapter 8._

   "The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence
   for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish
   allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black
   Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly
   restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and
   making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of
   Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,
   ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of
   Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock
   of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so
   great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no
   proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of
   this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by
   no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of
   conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the
   Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the
   Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe
   behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind
   were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.
   They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of
   the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of
   June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian
   troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars
   in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …
   Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with
   extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length
   found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of
   withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the
   Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to
   chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had
   proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved
   successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had
   already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a
   manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able
   afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were
   soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the
   treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000
   auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in
   the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be
   more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a
   new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense
   cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before
   this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the
   war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to
   gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as
   if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first
   year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were
   obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,
   and to think of the protection and defence of their own
   frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and
   made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and
   the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich
   first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much
   difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew
   … who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks
   and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only
   maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,
   untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of
   10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and
   cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least
   the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the
   Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,
   violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which
   was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at
   Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards
   the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress
   of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was
   taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at
   the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich
   even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of
   Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough
   that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the
   peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and
   disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained
   by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her
   most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,
   Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of
   Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the
   last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to
   evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the
   latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;
   Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,
   which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities
   for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the
   Tatars and Turks."

      _W. K. Kelly,
      History of Russia,
      chapter 33 (volume 1)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
   The question of the Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
   Interference in the election of king of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
   Two regencies and two revolutions.
   The reign of Empress Elizabeth.

   The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
   had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
   of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
   the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
   successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
   regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
   conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
   the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
   Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
   with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
   Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
   throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
   and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
   Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
   of her sensual propensities.
{2764}
   Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
   with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
   lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
   drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
   and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
   business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
   herself with the cares of government had she not been
   restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
   what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
   with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
   Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
   and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
   revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
   she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
   throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
   celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
   the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
   communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
   had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
   she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
   matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
   Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
   assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
   demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
   all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
   Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
   the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
   than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
   renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
   rencounter, as they had been before."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3)._

   "This war had no result except to show the weakness of the
   Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The
   Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their
   former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,
   subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes
   laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian
   force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress
   acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused
   Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and
   one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in
   place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy
   … Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She
   developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the
   legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave
   an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;
   she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,
   emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she
   put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth
   died in January, 1762.

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.
   Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
   Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
   Causes of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.
   Invasion of Prussia.
   Defeat at Zorndorf.
   Retreat.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.
   Renewed invasion of Prussia.
   Victory at Kunersdorf.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
   Brief reign of Peter III.
   His peace with Frederick the Great.
   His deposition and death.
   His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.

   "Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
   had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
   religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
   Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
   after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
   education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
   exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
   relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
   were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
   and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
   1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
   of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
   Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
   received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
   entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
   powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
   whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
   seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
   countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
   Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
   her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
   influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
   repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
   husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
   bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
   were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
   learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
   penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
   Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
   the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
   attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
   much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
   domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
   his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
   neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
   dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
   fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
   was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
   towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
   died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
   to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
   behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
   ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
   half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
   quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
   adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
   chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
   the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
   servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
   them.
{2765}
   He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
   to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
   won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
   contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
   religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
   Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
   [but with whom he entered into alliance.]

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

   The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were
   easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine
   and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was
   carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when
   Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,
   some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of
   the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.
   "Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that
   number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of
   Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here
   every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of
   Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the
   altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the
   empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was
   proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her
   successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events
   reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the
   opportunity to take to flight. On the day following
   Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within
   a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,
   he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did
   its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this
   deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little
   doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have
   ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by
   her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her
   crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been
   dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown
   to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.

      _History of Russia
      (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
      volume 1._

      _A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
      History of Russia,
      volume 1, pages 203-221._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
   Character and reign of Catherine II.
   Partition of Poland.
   Wars with the Turks.
   Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
   Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.

   "Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman
   whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great
   for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the
   gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their
   concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed
   ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the
   shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly
   as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with
   high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising
   the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve
   her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and
   improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is
   found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The
   foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of
   Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to
   have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that
   followed.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

   If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is
   at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way
   for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.
   1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory
   to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and
   conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and
   occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no
   longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had
   sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An
   insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a
   time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The
   great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness
   of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to
   further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The
   possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free
   navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the
   immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better
   treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of
   remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek
   church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future
   advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the
   Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern
   shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these
   tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength
   except their own; and the way was prepared for their
   annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this
   settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years
   dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and
   Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine
   passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they
   remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters
   of his country.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

   At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by
   Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine
   was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress
   she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of
   Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the
   scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon
   the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she
   held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the
   partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The
   Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.
   Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded
   Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard
   the Swedish guns.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

   She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
   the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
   retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
   the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
   supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
   own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
   town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
{2766}
   Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
   horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
   of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
   had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
   the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
   herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
   successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
   frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
   soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
   Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
   had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
   partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.

   The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to
   rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of
   them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of
   the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs
   was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian
   history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to
   discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to
   nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and
   Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.
   And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there
   was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little
   finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her
   greatness may be said to have passed away."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 6._

   "The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic
   instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by
   the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up
   despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made
   her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle
   in every department of the national life. She tried to force
   civilisation into premature growths; established modern
   institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric
   empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in
   the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress
   and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and
   ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same
   time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish
   all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase
   paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of
   money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black
   Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent
   another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over
   Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,
   however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's
   internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and
   prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words
   and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be
   attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that
   reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half
   Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old
   tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under
   Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed
   to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a
   harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine
   bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and
   showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given
   and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of
   Catherine was more successful than her government and
   administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently
   plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in
   the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance
   she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung
   to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness
   of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the
   French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and
   Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The
   Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of
   conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily
   increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in
   its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a
   complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean
   the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,
   and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this
   German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially
   after her death, in the history, and the national life, and
   development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said
   that it is since her death, above all, that she has become
   what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and
   splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with
   an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man
   of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends
   already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave
   proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of
   extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the
   growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to
   her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In
   Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized
   it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and
   D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to
   extol, her government. This great force had prodigious
   influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her
   reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:
   —'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the
   wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,
   and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and
   so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the
   modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to
   believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,
   and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the
   part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe
   was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,
   managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when
   necessary.'"

      _The Empress Catherine II.
      (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._

   "In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following
   resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new
   secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of
   an inventory:

   Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
   Towns built, 144;
   Treaties made, 30;
   Victories won, 78;
   Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
   Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
   Total, 492.

{2767}

   Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing
   piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there
   was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in
   the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort
   Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the
   reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a
   sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct
   inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply
   marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained
   diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who
   knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or
   apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is
   true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and
   statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her
   generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do
   nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to
   command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and
   wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,
   bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate
   attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …
   Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked
   and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,
   gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans
   of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the
   misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,
   however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to
   the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she
   was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven
   had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do
   anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman
   has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for
   her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which
   bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:
   this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of
   them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her
   vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by
   the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The
   general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to
   see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These
   mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more
   than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised
   her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came
   little by little to translate this capital defect into a
   'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth
   another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to
   obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another
   causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,
   for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even
   without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of
   having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a
   letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,
   one or another of her most devoted servants."

      _R. Waliszewski,
      Romance of an Empress,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Tooke,
      Life of Catherine II._

      _Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself._

      _Princess Daschkaw,
      Memoirs._

      _S. Menzies,
      Royal Favourites._

      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      volumes 4-7._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.
   Establishment of the Jewish Pale.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.
   Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.
   Accession of Paul.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
   The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

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

RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
   Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
   and failure in Switzerland.
   Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
   Its disastrous ending.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
      (AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
   Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
   His alliance with Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
   War with England.
   The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
   at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
   Peace with England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
   Paul's despotism and assassination.
   Accession of Alexander I.

   The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
   directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
   servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
   of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
   He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
   the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
   they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
   he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
   he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
   their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
   ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
   severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
   there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
   intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
   a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
   protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
   driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
   province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
   belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
   a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
   inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
   Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
   for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
   was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
   Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
   as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
   ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
   disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
   deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
   sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
   Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
   Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
   including a large number of military and civil officials,
   supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
   most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
   the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
   bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
   his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
   dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
   he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
{2768}
   He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
   and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,
   just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
   when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
   head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
   terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
   prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
   and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
   Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
   in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
   obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
   the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
   cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
   palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
   when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
   alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
   One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
   it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
   conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
   prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
   scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
   yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
   striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
   that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
   vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
   despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
   filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
   received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
   first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
   his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
   one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
   mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
   natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
   the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
   perished miserably."

      _Prince Adam Czartoryski,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 9 and 11._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
   The Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
   The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
   Battle of Eylau.
   Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
   Decisive defeat at Friedland.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
   Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
   Treaty of Tilsit.
   Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.

      See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
   Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
   English seizure of the Danish fleet.
   War with England and Sweden.
   Conquest of Finland.
   Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.
   Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.
   Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
   War with Turkey.
   Treaty of Bucharest.
   Acquisition of Bessarabia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
   Grievances against France.
   Desertion of the Continental System.
   Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
   Rupture with Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
   Napoleon's invasion.
   Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
   The French advance to Moscow.

   "With the military resources of France, which then counted 130
   departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of
   the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
   and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon
   could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of
   June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom
   were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only
   Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and
   Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also
   the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,
   natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at
   its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;
   Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of
   nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,
   which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under
   their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,
   Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the
   great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'
   as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon
   transported all these races from the West to the East by a
   movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept
   them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand
   Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To
   the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and
   20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before
   Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the
   Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry
   under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,
   Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,
   Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,
   &c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of
   Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly
   against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians
   in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000
   men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the
   divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,
   it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that
   Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre
   of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,
   commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,
   60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what
   were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On
   the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose
   Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,
   to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as
   possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.
{2769}
   Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the
   Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral
   Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.
   In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000
   men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men
   Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia
   could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de
   Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of
   Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.
   To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he
   wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in
   1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought
   by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched
   camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres
   Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl
   desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his
   intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and
   was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the
   Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies
   fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient
   capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second
   proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of
   Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of
   Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion
   of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …
   Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the
   possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to
   make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave
   Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A
   last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had
   proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of
   Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.
   If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented
   himself with organising and defending the ancient principality
   of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the
   reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its
   former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have
   been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the
   interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success
   not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two
   Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the
   misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,
   caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after
   having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on
   Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order
   to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian
   generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this
   continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear
   and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,
   like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a
   retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and
   stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they
   advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the
   offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of
   Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was
   suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the
   initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a
   bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and
   18th of August, another desperate fight took place at
   Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay
   still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat
   Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:
   15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.
   Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of
   Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind
   them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the
   Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had
   lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from
   Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the
   discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to
   murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was
   then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme
   command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had
   then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,
   10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by
   14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon
   had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000
   cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or
   artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the
   redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great
   battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the
   Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,
   though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of
   carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200
   guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with
   an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the
   redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of
   Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten
   o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry
   out his first success by employing the reserve, and the
   Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They
   recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an
   incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight
   took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve
   troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;
   Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from
   behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while
   Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had
   lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to
   retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians
   40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to
   Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were
   retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he
   decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating
   Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the
   French entered it at their heels.

      _A. Rambaud,
      History of Russia,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

{2770}

   "The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee
   the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.
   and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him
   into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any
   plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,
   quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part
   in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would
   be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,
   we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their
   whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and
   approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give
   battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The
   battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are
   killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our
   generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,
   betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with
   this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in
   Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the
   seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we
   retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures
   necessary to conquer the French."

      _Count L. Tolstoi,
      The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      _Count P. de Segur,
      History of the Expedition to Russia,
      books 1-8 (volumes 1-2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).
   The French in Moscow.
   The burning of the city.

   "With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights
   whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of
   Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost
   sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with
   feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.
   Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of
   the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot
   all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of
   Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at
   the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the
   other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,
   protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the
   left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the
   bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in
   the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great
   Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,
   as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the
   days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his
   glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch
   was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy
   Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired
   during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army
   should continue to defile across the city without a moment's
   halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the
   ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed
   by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the
   streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest
   quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most
   profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the
   dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole
   population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the
   commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves
   that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the
   inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th
   September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his
   invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and
   his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a
   capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings
   on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached
   the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the
   great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent
   city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the
   tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which
   during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of
   the most animated in the world. The army was distributed
   through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene
   occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,
   and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had
   traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in
   the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;
   and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its
   environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,
   and the first necessities of the troops were readily
   satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of
   palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a
   brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,
   perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken
   great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred
   against the French, to procure protectors for their rich
   dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their
   splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered
   with equal delight through the midst of the city, which
   resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They
   contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the
   capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric
   circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow
   had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely
   a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number
   were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of
   the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the
   footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the
   city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no
   suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian
   army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had
   departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French
   army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,
   probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good
   winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,
   on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from
   a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just
   as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in
   this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a
   collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the
   northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest
   magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of
   India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,
   and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately
   hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their
   energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the
   immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,
   with the exception of some portions which our men were able to
   snatch from the devouring element.
{2771}
   This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,
   and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an
   evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,
   however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as
   though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same
   moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales
   suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season
   and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance
   to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried
   the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the
   Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and
   the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,
   spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long
   arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And
   soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were
   seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated
   under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful
   secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning
   of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village
   on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army
   with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions
   should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose
   of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the
   act, and that all the available troops should be employed in
   extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the
   pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter
   circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the
   matter had remained, the terrible determination with which
   Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the
   wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the
   efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,
   with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the
   east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into
   quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been
   able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the
   northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew
   from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in
   spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,
   over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the
   Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition
   wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal
   contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent
   danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the
   palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …
   Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,
   descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where
   he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in
   threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which
   direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified
   army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and
   Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg
   roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk
   route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left
   around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,
   our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,
   after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though
   it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained
   in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,
   now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they
   valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,
   and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom
   Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of
   the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of
   chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of
   Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.
   Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the
   troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of
   the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it
   was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As
   a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from
   southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were
   carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets
   Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the
   conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes
   were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately
   façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports
   became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible
   through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and
   the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three
   successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of
   September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated
   intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the
   city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,
   as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the
   equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,
   as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was
   visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of
   the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly
   due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants
   of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property
   still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible
   to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of
   this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be
   told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,
   incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of
   Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the] Consulate and the Empire,
      book 44 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Count M. Dumas,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      _J. Philippart,
      Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
      volume 1, pages 81-115._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).
   The retreat from Moscow.
   Its horrors.

   "Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
   own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
   reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
   October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
   think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
   flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
   men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
   October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
   still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
   encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
   Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
   The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
   finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
   route changed.
{2772}
   The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
   the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
   quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
   Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
   9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
   and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
   heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
   obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
   foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
   provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
   Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
   the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
   Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
   army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
   was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
   and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
   The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
   intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
   for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
   forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
   a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
   surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
   captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
   moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
   prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
   the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
   the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
   Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
   guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
   40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
   Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
   the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
   found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
   General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
   their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
   all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
   while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
   army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
   Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
   after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
   Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
   the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
   fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
   confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
   The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
   helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
   famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
   had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
   conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
   large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
   all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
   of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
   he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
   intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
   enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
   last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
   ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
   French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."

      _Victor Duruy,
      History of France,
      chapter 66._

   "Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with
   great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy
   parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of
   naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to
   have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till
   frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power
   of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have
   saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the
   Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a
   quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All
   prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped
   stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned
   adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who
   would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and
   hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts
   to terminate their suffering in the most certain and
   expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this
   mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the
   avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further
   protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of
   retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.
   Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with
   various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile
   from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with
   sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on
   each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,
   but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were
   striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they
   were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants
   were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.
   When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing
   shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la
   mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay
   naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around
   her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from
   which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole
   person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of
   agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon
   enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to
   explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from
   weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;
   that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed
   to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their
   pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every
   imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still
   continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the
   Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages
   and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier
   instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under
   the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at
   the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any
   prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil
   authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well
   as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher
   price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to
   surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable
   validity of the order.
{2773}
   Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups
   were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt
   embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded
   or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off
   with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of
   their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a
   grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this
   food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but
   he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain
   to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier
   a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it
   with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly
   checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:
   looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his
   cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he
   would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he
   fell back and had expired before he could be reached.
   Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former
   masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and
   their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh
   from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could
   not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as
   in many cases their consciousness and senses remained
   unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses
   was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of
   the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty
   of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury
   them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted
   party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the
   victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went
   to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in
   his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was
   a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid
   of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot
   and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had
   performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at
   stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;
   and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of
   desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded
   in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are
   indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."

      _General Sir R. Wilson,
      Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,
      pages 255-261._

      _General Sir R. Wilson,
      Private Journal,
      volume 1, page 202-257._

   When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of
   December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They
   marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was
   only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were
   informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.
   'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he
   abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then
   is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us
   to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,
   is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of
   Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became
   indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free
   from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which
   they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was
   indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy
   of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to
   their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater
   part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned
   the remains of the regiments with which they had been
   intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every
   step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches
   of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These
   warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our
   enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their
   fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely
   obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly
   commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because
   all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every
   one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards
   inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the
   image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses
   to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the
   half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having
   advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too
   weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some
   miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the
   blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like
   ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies
   of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,
   fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with
   soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the
   enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable
   men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some
   had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by
   excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic
   stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their
   comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.
   Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or
   roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they
   sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a
   haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.
   No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living
   spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom
   they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm
   their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of
   the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into
   the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and
   uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally
   insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same
   fate."

      _E. Labaume,
      Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
      part 2, book 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Count P. de Segur,
      History of the Expedition to Russia,
      books 9-12 (volume 2)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      _Earl Stanhope,
      The French Retreat from Moscow
      (Historical Essays;
      and, also,
      Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123)._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
   The War of Liberation in Germany.
   Alliance of Austria.
   The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.

{2774}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
   The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).
   The Treaty of Paris.
   Evacuation of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Congress of Vienna.
   Acquisitions in Poland.
   Surrender of Eastern Galicia.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   Napoleon's return from Elba.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Waterloo campaign and its results.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   The Allies again in France.
   Second Treaty of Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
   The Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.
   Expulsion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.
   Accession of Nicholas.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Intervention on behalf of Greece.
   Battle of Navarino.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
   Polish revolt and its suppression.
   Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
   Joint occupation of Cracow.
   Extinction of the republic.
   Its annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.
   The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.
   Subjugation of the Caucasus.

      See CAUCASUS.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.
   Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
   Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.

   "The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a
   dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the
   custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was
   the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the
   Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,
   actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg
   that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion
   of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January
   1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It
   undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the
   effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his
   intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this
   country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.
   There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed
   a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed
   reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was
   regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he
   affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon
   frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a
   British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry
   with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the
   affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right
   of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a
   Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined
   to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in
   Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church
   was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had
   constantly supported, one against the other, these rival
   claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the
   controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by
   force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was
   stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of
   Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one
   which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly
   eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had
   undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian
   subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,
   which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated
   at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'
   The exact meaning of this famous article had always been
   disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it
   applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and
   the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had
   always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British
   statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general
   undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a
   constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so
   they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was
   not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic
   misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for
   complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.
   The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a
   general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the
   Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the
   demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish
   ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a
   Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the
   Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the
   custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were
   clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte
   abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities
   as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an
   interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a
   note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a
   settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the
   note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the
   Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always
   characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might
   even then have been prevented if the British Government had
   boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if
   she modified the conditions she need not count on England's
   assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's
   Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of
   his life that this course should have been taken.
{2775}
   But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,
   according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna
   Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the
   Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and
   on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited
   a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,
   indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which
   had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the
   complication had been originally introduced by the act of
   France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of
   the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of
   which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause
   of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that
   the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise
   discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation
   instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,
   had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,
   therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of
   supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned
   this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar
   Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over
   the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly
   attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an
   act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a
   rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward
   inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared
   war."

      _S. Walpole,
      Foreign Relations,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. W. Kinglake,
      The Invasion of the Crimea,
      volume l._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
   The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
   Battle of the Alma.
   Sufferings of the invading army.

   "England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord
   Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the
   Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right
   arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to
   command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,
   brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of
   the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The
   allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on
   the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their
   descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for
   the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The
   Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable
   ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances
   received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and
   successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian
   provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake
   and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the
   Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English
   people the war might well have ended then and there. The
   Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could
   not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was
   confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing
   for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with
   what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the
   enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,
   and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The
   allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There
   is much discussion as to the original author of the project
   for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had
   it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of
   Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'
   newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the
   idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it
   was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took
   possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of
   the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden
   fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised
   and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet
   had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called
   the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of
   Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;
   from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition
   of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of
   aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet
   of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the
   vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian
   fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and
   was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,
   Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if
   the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor
   for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered
   at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a
   soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the
   French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of
   deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by
   Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the
   French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to
   decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,
   therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,
   and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north
   of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.
   Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,
   more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting
   promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The
   disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.
   It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some
   27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the
   shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was
   effected without any opposition from the Russians. On
   September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments
   and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a
   skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry
   and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until
   they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in
   great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the
   heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied
   forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They
   found that they had to cross the river in the face of the
   Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point
   of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense
   masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were
   under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.
{2776}
   It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position
   unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were
   delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and
   attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was
   made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but
   without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of
   discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which
   the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the
   English and French troops carried all before them at last. A
   study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary
   reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence
   of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an
   almost total absence of generalship on the part of the
   Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and
   stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand
   up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English
   and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were
   mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the
   Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their
   ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians
   ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a
   pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …
   But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up
   the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and
   Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise
   that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;
   and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who
   fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this
   distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the
   heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of
   the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be
   sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions
   differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.
   Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.
   Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to
   the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.
   She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the
   expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special
   correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.
   The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost
   immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the
   'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.
   Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell
   soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of
   judgment to know that the confusion was that of a
   breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight
   in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the
   minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was
   ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of
   popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the
   readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring
   badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks
   were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued
   by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.
   … The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.
   Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in
   places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,
   while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea
   for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of
   feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample
   provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they
   came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The
   special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents
   continued to din these things into the ears of the public at
   home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The
   patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of
   deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war
   administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the
   whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was
   to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,
   brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we
   do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their
   minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at
   the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the
   field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than
   to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely
   that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and
   sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of
   the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and
   they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of
   the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea
   fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was
   done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,
   misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,
   thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their
   shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the
   real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the
   eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and
   sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts
   were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as
   by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There
   was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."

      _J. McCarthy,
      History of Our Own Times,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir E. Hamley,
      The War in the Crimea,
      chapters 2-3._

      _W. H. Russell,
      The British Expedition to the Crimea,
      books 1-2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).
   Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.

   Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the
   Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of
   necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have
   been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of
   their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that
   such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But
   again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined
   "to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and
   to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a
   difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,
   and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any
   assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out
   unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little
   landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep
   hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly
   warned of the operation, had already arrived. …
{2777}
   Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A
   similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now
   again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?
   Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and
   others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,
   more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported
   by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English
   Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was
   determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet
   were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in
   preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent
   knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable
   if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances
   mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the
   true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange
   measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his
   fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be
   sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;
   and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the
   ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and
   had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now
   number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being
   sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not
   those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched
   position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working
   together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.
   Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer
   nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von
   Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an
   assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the
   allies to await the landing of their siege train was more
   far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although
   some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.
   It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de
   main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect
   and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not
   strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been
   made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon
   the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible
   suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the
   inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including
   the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French
   undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing
   their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly
   the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the
   batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the
   16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The
   energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time
   roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the
   defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October
   means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow
   considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the
   17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained
   the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the
   French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought
   to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their
   lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be
   unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the
   fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of
   October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover
   of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of
   Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking
   the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that
   day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of
   the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the
   position of the allies became evident."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England, 1837-1880,
      pages 251-256._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. W. Kinglake,
      The Invasion of the Crimea,
      volumes 3-4._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
   The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.

   "The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to
   allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town
   undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some
   time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing
   that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on
   the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced
   against the English position, hoping to get possession of the
   harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at
   any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.
   The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came
   was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish
   recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a
   very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the
   Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue
   the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very
   different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin
   Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great
   firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished
   themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of
   Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that
   the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607
   men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped
   forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having
   been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,
   unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,
   having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing
   away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant
   men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,
   and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,
   misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position
   ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to
   retire, without having effected their object: but as they
   retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by
   the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed
   the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour
   of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander
   did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of
   Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just
   been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with
   a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann
   they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior
   force, that they were obliged to retreat.
{2778}
   The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate
   with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the
   allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from
   entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the
   plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had
   probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the
   scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly
   and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,
   November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,
   while it was still concealed from view by the mists which
   overhung the British position. That army had been greatly
   increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every
   effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:
   they had been stimulated by religious services and
   exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent
   spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they
   would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force
   from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of
   a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity
   prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was
   going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of
   attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,
   and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion
   in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the
   Russians, who had received their instructions before they set
   out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in
   fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment
   against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from
   the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the
   superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The
   principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of
   Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,
   who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main
   body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand
   contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and
   superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that
   the small British force would have been eventually swept off
   the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a
   soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,
   turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real
   point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force
   to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and
   never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such
   fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate
   of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney
   Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss
   Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and
   self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the
   military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were
   received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in
   a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other
   stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of
   vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions
   had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be
   found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.
   The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised
   to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved
   to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,
   extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which
   England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority
   which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her
   own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled
   her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the
   multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts
   as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at
   Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of
   Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual
   rigour and severity."

      _W. N. Molesworth,
      History of England, 1830-1874,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Nolan,
      Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
      chapters 40-48 (volume 1)._

      _Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,
      chapters 7-8._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Siege and capture of Kars.

   "Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more
   fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army
   at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its
   unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,
   resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the
   Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint
   Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes
   of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of
   them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and
   Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,
   1854, where he was received with the honour due to his
   position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia
   Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque
   squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once
   considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army
   there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay
   fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses
   half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely
   said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices
   and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an
   unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de
   Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel
   Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in
   securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In
   the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel
   Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,
   together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of
   the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but
   notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted
   spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active
   hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at
   Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,
   in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually
   assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early
   in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five
   leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the
   Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been
   familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the
   scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were
   insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any
   considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very
   low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th
   of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum
   was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the
   Turks fell into their hands.
{2779}
   In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of
   troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this
   movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at
   the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the
   prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar
   Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had
   landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon
   arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,
   occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of
   Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army
   to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This
   surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,
   large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving
   the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived
   by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to
   an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th
   of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery
   wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison
   made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim
   moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an
   advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks
   by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were
   they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed
   them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced
   almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a
   shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and
   redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and
   rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the
   great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense
   masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the
   Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the
   hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the
   Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance
   which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have
   been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal
   victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their
   loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,
   and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of
   them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they
   carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had
   suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the
   position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to
   resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as
   before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants
   of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to
   this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those
   who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the
   first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,
   but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The
   flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations
   of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse
   bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …
   Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning
   skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.
   The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was
   almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or
   Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an
   end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …
   Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …
   The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might
   have contributed to prevent it."

      _T. Gaspey,
      History of England, George III.-Victoria,
      chapter 56 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Ward,
      Humphrey Sandwith,
      chapter 9._

      _S. Lane-Poole,
      Life of Stratford Canning,
      chapter 31 (volume 2)._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
   Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
   Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
   Battle of the Tchernaya.
   Repulse of the English from the Redan.
   Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
   The congress at Paris.
   Peace.

   In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized
   Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the
   Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis
   of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the
   previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:

   "(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over
   the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective
   guarantee;

   (2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed
   from all impediments;

   (3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
   the European equilibrium; and

   (4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
   Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …

   The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not
   prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the
   Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and
   England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached
   to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was
   doomed to find that every successive explanation of these
   points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The
   freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be
   secured unless she surrendered the territory between that
   river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of
   Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was
   assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black
   Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from
   his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to
   prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a
   conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in
   the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these
   circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The
   conference which it was decided to hold in December did not
   assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had
   been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;
   and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of
   an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a
   statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston
   entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way
   to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore
   troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing
   strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither
   heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His
   sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound
   impression on the mind of Europe. …
{2780}
   Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with
   disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his
   adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,
   therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the
   Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who
   assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome
   agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers
   admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On
   the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western
   Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be
   placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and
   they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not
   add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had
   still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such
   condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and
   refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on
   absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of
   doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the
   Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all
   nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining
   whether he would open them to the vessels either of the
   Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were
   firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia
   from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the
   alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically
   terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the
   Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian
   offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian
   alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the
   struggle was resumed under conditions very different from
   those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,
   indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released
   her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,
   and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.
   But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of
   Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year
   Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops
   rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English
   armies, and finer weather as well as better management
   banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the
   bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack
   on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,
   proved the means of intercepting communication between
   Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast
   stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June
   the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more
   robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful
   attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized
   another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of
   these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the
   beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.
   A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French
   on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its
   failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old
   soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the
   English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from
   any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.
   That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding
   winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and
   he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the
   credit which attaches to any military man who holds a
   responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis
   of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts
   were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the
   Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the
   French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of
   September the assault of June was repeated; and though the
   British were again driven back from the Redan, the French
   succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising
   the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their
   remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of
   the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a
   year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.
   It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the
   narrative of operations which had little influence on history.
   The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of
   Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect
   on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.
   Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it
   became evident that the war was approaching its close. The
   cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the
   French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental
   circumstances, which gave them in August and September the
   chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The
   reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did
   not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were
   mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been
   raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and
   at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share
   in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the
   English story. The English troops had taken no part in the
   battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been
   driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the
   final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own
   countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that
   fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of
   their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like
   the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has
   gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should
   retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired
   her defective administration and reinforced her shattered
   army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever
   wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,
   responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not
   conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some
   honourable means for terminating the war. In October the
   British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor
   had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About
   the same time the members of the Government learned with equal
   alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French
   public were demanding that France should secure some advantage
   in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In
   November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,
   and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the
   knowledge of England. …
{2781}
   It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of
   France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without
   her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and
   to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,
   adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia
   by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was
   accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign
   Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at
   Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,
   at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally
   disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in
   accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in
   the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was
   signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right
   of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public
   law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the
   case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to
   mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue
   and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the
   condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the
   communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either
   collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan
   and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its
   waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the
   exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the
   service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it
   forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the
   shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of
   the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the
   Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the
   Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly
   guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan
   the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that
   Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had
   made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.
   Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before
   the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,
   the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to
   discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of
   the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press
   was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the
   mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 24. _

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 2, documents 263-272._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.
   Accession of Alexander II.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.
   Improved treatment of the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
   Conquests in Central Asia.
   Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.

   "The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or
   Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the
   Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of
   Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734
   the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not
   until the present century had far advanced that the Russian
   Government could so much as flatter itself that it had
   effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated
   Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the
   Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced
   post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus
   simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's
   immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The
   conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and
   capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;
   its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified
   towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to
   a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The
   conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the
   century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and
   this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name
   of General Tchernaieff."

      _D. C. Boulger,
      Central Asian Questions,
      chapter 1._

   "Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
   Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
   time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
   Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
   Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
   only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
   devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
   numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
   upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
   retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
   St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
   him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
   Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
   the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
   duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
   Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
   the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
   accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
   comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
   together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
   into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
   proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
   Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
   begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
   granted the free possession of the country which was left to
   him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
   south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
   and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
   indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
   the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
   ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
   frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
   years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
   upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
   unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
   for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
   different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
   theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
   route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
   to the Oxus [1873]. …
{2782}
   Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
   Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
   magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
   throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
   the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
   burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
   he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
   come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
   began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
   Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
   Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
   Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
   broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
   embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
   that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
   army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
   and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
   into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
   one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
   easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
   between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
   protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
   which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
   surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
   Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
   the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
   Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
   tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
   throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
   to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
   Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
   Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
   south."

      _A. Vambéry,
      The Coming Struggle for India,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. von Hellwald,
      The Russians in Central Asia,
      chapters 7-11. _

      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapters 12 and 18._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.
   The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.

      See NIHILISM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.
   Emancipation of serfs.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
      RUSSIAN SERFDOM.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.
   Organization of Public Instruction.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.
   Sale of Alaska to the United States.

      See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
   Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
   Capture of Geok Tepe.
   Subjugation of the Turkomans.
   Occupation of Merv.

   "Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was
   conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of
   Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the
   southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia
   required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai
   Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea
   became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse
   population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman
   country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a
   stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more
   especially to increase the extent of territory under their
   control, and open the land route to India, the Russians
   occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military
   expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,
   and took permanent possession of the country in the name of
   the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been
   occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during
   the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was
   only temporary. The force which established itself at
   Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two
   sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.
   Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in
   the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a
   world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this
   expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the
   Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'
   and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region
   made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke
   Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the
   defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were
   numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the
   steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.
   General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was
   succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to
   the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed
   Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be
   no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the
   country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the
   years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat
   were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a
   decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced
   with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but
   no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon
   him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to
   Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff
   was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the
   difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by
   General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.
   Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than
   seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.
   Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,
   matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which
   he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work
   [1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular
   line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,
   secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to
   Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and
   better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's
   first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be
   taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek
   Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in
   the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the
   Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies
   south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it
   touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on
   the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who
   held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that
   region.
{2783}
   They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;
   reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a
   strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers
   and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their
   position and settle on the most fertile oases along the
   northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been
   renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the
   abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and
   were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress
   of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of
   walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,
   and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6
   feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls
   was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the
   first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,
   and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their
   families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The
   Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.
   "The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was
   successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a
   regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the
   Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of
   these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging
   army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from
   30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made
   frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.
   Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,
   and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is
   highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than
   did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns
   were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7
   o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to
   attack the first fortification on the south front, supported
   by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an
   explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a
   dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the
   action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid
   with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely
   buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff
   carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged
   in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in
   possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the
   fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be
   panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and
   all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled
   with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of
   the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the
   pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than
   8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the
   siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …
   Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital
   of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from
   Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column
   half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to
   capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the
   attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained
   the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until
   circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,
   and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture
   [February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the
   most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in
   Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the
   frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire
   southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it
   was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of
   man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans
   had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no
   longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave
   markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."

      _T. W. Knox,
      Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
      chapter 22._

   "There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers
   great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and
   Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,
   have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,
   or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic
   provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would
   support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this
   may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are
   carried across China, and when water—the great want of
   Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and
   artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that
   whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in
   these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses
   the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the
   surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only
   contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;
   and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there
   are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so
   many growing towns that need workmen, so many
   counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,
   that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the
   empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported
   that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the
   parts about Merv."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      National Life and Character,
      pages 43-44._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Skobeleff,
      Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
      (Geok-Tépé): Official Report._

      _C. Marvin,
      The Russians at the Gates of Herat,
      chapter 1-2._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
   Successful war with Turkey.
   Siege and reduction of Plevna.
   Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
   Treaty of San Stefano.
   Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.
   Movements in Afghanistan.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

{2784}

RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
   Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
   His assassination.

   In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the
   memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,
   and he left the Crimea on November 30.    The following
   evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another
   carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the
   baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which
   destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He
   was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as
   he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be
   another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by
   an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who
   was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar
   mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart
   before the train arrived, had been laid further south at
   Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in
   time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the
   Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He
   telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he
   had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,
   which she learned from the newspapers, and from her
   attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising
   that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was
   discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the
   Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in
   September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a
   scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have
   perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular
   acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the
   people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of
   death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary
   Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently
   selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the
   death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in
   the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and
   her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was
   decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …
   The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she
   arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the
   closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to
   the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],
   a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial
   family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were
   well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept
   alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her
   apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only
   surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had
   arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his
   wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We
   were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's
   rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The
   flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were
   extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same
   time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite
   filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the
   chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was
   laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither
   with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count
   Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back
   the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in
   ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was
   delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to
   this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the
   dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas
   explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,
   said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently
   stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed
   black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always
   containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd
   of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His
   first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then
   asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being
   alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the
   catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of
   dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a
   foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those
   concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent
   information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd
   of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one
   acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in
   the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two
   servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,
   who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above
   the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and
   foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant
   a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it
   is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations
   he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,
   if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and
   for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in
   power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and
   decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a
   man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,
   and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary
   dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over
   the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established
   throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The
   explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in
   St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for
   the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not
   likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who
   lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the
   incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found
   among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real
   attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of
   assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of
   sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to
   which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions
   which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to
   ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have
   rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is
   not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his
   chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open
   droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the
   Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres
   of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired
   to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of
   June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …
{2785}
   It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned
   to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must
   pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign
   princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and
   attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the
   previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level
   with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,
   prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success
   of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the
   Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his
   own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,
   he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was
   preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his
   sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,
   Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the
   Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.
   This man refused to answer any questions, except that his
   capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,
   and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both
   Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to
   attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,
   March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to
   the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed
   Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he
   set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter
   Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the
   part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the
   Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and
   exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses
   of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and
   breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one
   of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a
   basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on
   the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but
   the last only drove on faster, having received private orders
   from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to
   prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or
   among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the
   coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the
   man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out
   to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt
   removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …
   The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had
   thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still
   struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his
   name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself
   Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or
   two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.
   It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;
   and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was
   afterwards supposed that he had already received slight
   wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the
   road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,
   two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a
   bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces
   towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,
   and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides
   mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek
   to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other
   accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,
   and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not
   utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was
   supporting himself with his back against a buttress by
   grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his
   clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the
   snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were
   broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and
   snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides
   his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the
   abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his
   right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor
   expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.
   … More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two
   bombs."

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life of Alexander II.,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _Annual Register, 1879-1881._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.
   Accession of Alexander III.

RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
   Character and reign of Alexander III.
   Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
   Hostility to western civilization.

   "According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow
   paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor
   Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which
   he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a
   committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris
   Melikow's project of a general representative assembly
   composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March
   20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal
   dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.
   A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a
   detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said
   that the majority had declared for the convening of an
   assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of
   the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and
   wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the
   patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform
   is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew
   and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes
   of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement
   and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a
   manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to
   keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,
   in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to
   fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'
   A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil
   party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by
   the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.
   By far the most important personage under the present
   government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,
   an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the
   State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man
   is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too
   much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary
   position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has
   become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears
   the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the
   Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with
   Ministers of German origin.
{2786}
   He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal
   Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom
   belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,
   non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the
   Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions
   against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:
   19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are
   well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no
   wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited
   creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to
   Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of
   livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are
   principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.
   e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly
   deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an
   orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,
   peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have
   been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who
   remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all
   sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …
   It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the
   atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to
   sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of
   manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar
   insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty
   is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not
   penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does
   not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply
   the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has
   suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press
   is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some
   people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in
   their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does
   not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not
   hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations
   arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all
   this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them
   to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.
   … He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,
   very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as
   he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;
   and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the
   bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct
   provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,
   tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have
   been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de
   Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and
   personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the
   Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to
   exercise any."

      _Professor Geffcken,
      Russia under Alexander III.
      (New Review, September, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
      Russia under Alexander III._

RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.
   Death of Alexander III.
   Accession of Nicholas II.

   The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at
   Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the
   throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.
   Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in
   1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.

   ----------RUSSIA: End--------

RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.

   "Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,
   Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect
   Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the
   keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of
   Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the
   name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in
   contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great
   Russia. …

      See COSSACKS.

    The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly
    known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,
    industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of
    the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land
    of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the
    11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of
    Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to
    Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."

      _H. M. Chester,
      Russia, Past and Present,
      pages 225. 228, 270-271._

   "The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite
   Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were
   rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation
   of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the
   14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the
   Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was
   afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave
   the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk
   and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression
   altogether, since when it has lost all its political
   significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term
   'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their
   dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between
   the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from
   the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia
   (Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never
   had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the
   vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative
   divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the
   first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in
   association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was
   extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way
   Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to
   distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern
   provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and
   Dnieper."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 5. pages 282-290._

RUSSIAN AMERICA.

      See ALASKA.

RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

RUTENI, The.

   The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
   Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
   occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
   Revolution.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 17._

RUTENNU, The.

      See ROTENNU.

{2787}

RÜTLI,
GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

RUTULIANS, The.

      See LATIUM.

RUTUPIÆ.

   The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
   Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Roach Smith,
      Antiquities of Richborough._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

RUWARD OF BRABANT.

   "This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat
   anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly
   dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not
   exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions
   … were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the
   sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary
   stadholders."

      _J. L. Motley,
      The Rise of the Dutch Republic;
      part 5, chapter 4._

RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

RYSWICK, The Peace of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.

S

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SABÆANS, The.

      See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION
      AND FUSION OF RACES.

SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SABBATHAISTS.

   A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one
   Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion
   in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and
   who finally embraced Mahometanism.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 28._

SABELLIANS, The.

      See SABINES;
      also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

SABELLIANS, The sect of the.

      See NOËTIANS.

SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.

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

SABINE WARS, The.

   The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—
   gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or
   series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of
   the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But
   modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part
   of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from
   the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,
   as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius
   never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne
   conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the
   term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the
   Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost
   throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious
   narrative of Sabine wars.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 12._

SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 753-510.

SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.

   "The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under
   this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to
   have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the
   Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
   Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a
   pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in
   the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along
   this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf
   of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find
   support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued
   forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled
   with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed
   new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and
   Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the
   Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation
   we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional
   history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.
   Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens
   was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions
   in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be
   concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from
   that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this
   difference died out again as the Latin communities were
   gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      introduction, section 2._

      See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.

SABRINA.

   The ancient name of the Severn river.

SAC AND SOC.

   A term used in early English and Norman times to signify
   grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The
   manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 7, section 73._

      See, also, MANORS.

SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.

SACÆ, The.

   "The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,
   and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells
   us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and
   that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all
   the Scythians Sacæ."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5)._

      See, also, SCYTHIANS.

SACERDOTES.

   These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who
   performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the
   people, at public expense.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner.
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103. _

SACHEM.
SAGAMORE.

   "Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
   America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
   word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
   (Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
   derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
   a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
{2789}
   It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
   later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
   but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
   the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
   the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
   of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
   selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
   Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
   could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
   war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
   that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
   declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
   captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
   distinguished themselves by personal prowess."

      _D. G. Brinton,
      The Lenape and their Legends,
      chapter 3._

   "At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty
   permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;
   and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the
   supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves
   were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding
   separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,
   and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against
   contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested
   with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable
   forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed
   unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving
   to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them
   were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,
   fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the
   Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,
   the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative
   and judicial authority."

      _L. H. Morgan,
      The League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 3._

   "The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class
   known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note
   or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the
   distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).
   But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to
   the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings
   with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in
   Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,
   1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._

SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SACKETT'S HARBOR:
   Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SACRAMENTARIANS.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

SACRED BAND OF THEBES.

      See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.

SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.

SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

SACRED PROMONTORY, The.

   The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was
   anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early
   geographers to be the extreme western point of the known
   world.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2)._

SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.

   "After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred
   festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage
   roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like
   Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods
   themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came
   through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of
   road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild
   mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from
   the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.
   While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the
   carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had
   formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out
   which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the
   wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made
   it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to
   establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well
   as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting
   the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far
   as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in
   central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably
   prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the
   equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin
   from Delphi."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 4._

SACRED TRUCE, The.

      See OLYMPIC GAMES.

   ----------SACRED WAR: Start--------

SACRED WAR, The First.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586,
      and DELPHI.

SACRED WAR: The Second.

   The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,
   whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the
   sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army
   to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon
   the Athenians sent another and restored them.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 45._

SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

   ----------SACRED WAR: End--------

SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.

   The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
   Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
   processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.

      _W. M. Leake,
      Topography of Athens,
      section 2._

SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.

      See VIA SACRA.

SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

{2789}

SADDUCEES, The.

   "There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived
   from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the
   statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the
   Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have
   originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously
   conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly
   class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of
   Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or
   tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived
   their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the
   Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the
   Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of
   Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,
   with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,
   they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the
   derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 49._

   "At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in
   history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.
   159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a
   modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see
   JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the
   Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of
   Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.
   The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited
   for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,
   adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part
   in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised
   circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be
   real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly
   understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.
   They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers
   of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition
   with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they
   of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …
   The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from
   the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found
   special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the
   creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of
   God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real
   followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after
   death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The
   mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they
   regarded with mistrust and aversion."

      _J. J. I. Döllinger,
      The Gentile and the Jew in the
      Courts of the Temple of Christ,
      volume 2, page 302-303._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schürer,
      History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
      section 26 (division 2, volume 2). _

SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.

      See SAMANIDES.

SAGAMORE.

      See SACHEM.

SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SAGARTIANS, The.

   A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the
   western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region
   of modern Persia.

SAGAS.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.

SAGGENASH, The.

      See YANKEE.

SAGUENAY.

      See CANADA: NAMES.

SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SAHAPTINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SAHAY, Battle of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.

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

SAIM.

      See TIMAR.

SAINT ALBANS (England).
   Origin of.

      See VERULAMIUM.

SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.
   Battles of York and Lancaster.

   The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two
   battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first
   collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York
   occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King
   Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to
   8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the
   17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the
   streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists
   were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.

   "To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming
   orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,
   like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his
   paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established
   the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,
   which since that time has been the national emblem of
   Scotland."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21._

SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

SAINT ANGELO, Castle.

      See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.

      See AUSTIN CANONS.

   ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.
   Founded by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.
   Attack from South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
   Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.
   Temporary occupation by Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

   ----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------

SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).

SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:
   Ceded to England (1713).

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

{2790}

SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.
   Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).

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

SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.

      See HAYTI.

SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;
      also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

SAINT GEORGE, The order of.

   Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.

SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.

SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.

   When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,
   took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality
   by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of
   Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance
   which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing
   splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more
   enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had
   assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the
   air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and
   cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers
   of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the
   distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with
   tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded
   frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was
   annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a
   guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in
   Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a
   constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of
   deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which
   had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was
   affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace
   wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty
   ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their
   apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who
   had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought
   it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they
   should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring
   town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for
   each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 20 (volume 4)._

SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

SAINT GREGORY, Order of.

      Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.

   "Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is
   St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its
   meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly
   symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of
   the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the
   Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the
   prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and
   colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to
   obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held
   in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,
   Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and
   devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      A Trip to England,
      page 54._

SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.

      See ACRE.

SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.

      See HOSPITALLERS.

SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.

SAINT JUST,
   and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

SAINT LAWRENCE:
   Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.

   "Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its
   origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first
   century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan
   enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,
   however, that in very early times Christian charity founded
   establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary
   saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those
   hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the
   first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a
   charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.
   For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the
   members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they
   formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended
   the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of
   lepers was their first object, and they not only received
   lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their
   grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the
   disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their
   institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a
   condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings
   of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it
   only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always
   green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,
   which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But
   neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.
   Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."

      _C. Mills,
      History of the Crusades,
      chapter 8, with foot-notes._

{2791}

SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.
   The founding of the city.

   "St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
   the Mississippi to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

   Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French
   settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to
   a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in
   February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.
   Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French
   Canadians."

      _S. A. Drake,
      The Making of the Great West,
      page 179._

      See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
   Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
   The capture of Camp Jackson.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.
   General Price's attempt against.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of
   France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.

   A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the
   coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of
   which were put afloat without open authority from their
   respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of
   8,000 men and 180 ships.

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapter 13._

SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.

      See LION OF ST. MARK,
      and VENICE: A. D. 829.

SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.

   "Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of
   chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,
   limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he
   fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into
   insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The
   first brethren were named from the highest families in France;
   the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics
   of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this
   mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read
   the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.
   Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the
   feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for
   the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The
   brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment
   of its founder, into a confederation of spies."

      _J. White,
      History of France,
      chapter 7._

SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.

   A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the
   purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most
   meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great
   Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may
   have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the
   Mediterranean Sea."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      Book of the Orders of Knighthood,
      page 107._

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.
   Unsuccessful siege by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by Louis XIV.

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

SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.
   Ceded to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

SAINT PATRICK, The order of.

   An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of
   England.

SAINT PAUL, Republic of.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.

SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.

   "The first church which existed on or near the site of the
   present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by
   Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained
   by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many
   Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and
   where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306
   Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope
   Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,
   labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old
   basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction
   was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried
   out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.
   Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,
   obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross
   from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account
   of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only
   lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed
   Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the
   design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out
   any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died
   also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,
   sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who
   continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of
   a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and
   beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise
   the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo
   della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in
   1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban
   VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander
   VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of
   the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,
   and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were
   obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to
   the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has
   been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs
   is £6,300."

      _A. J. C. Hare,
      Walks in Rome,
      chapter 15._

      _ALSO IN:
      H. Grimm,
      Life of Michael Angelo,
      chapters 15-16._

{2792}

SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.

SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.

      See BELGÆ.

SAINT QUENTIN,
   Battle and siege of (1557).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).

   See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.

   This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded
   by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,
   afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.

SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.
   The crown of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.
   The Chamber of the House of Commons.

      See WESTMINSTER PALACE.

SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.

   "This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into
   a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In
   the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to
   Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the
   work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had
   given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He
   had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for
   a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had
   called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,
   as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem
   to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of
   Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.
   Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London
   itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …
   They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according
   to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross
   charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of
   the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross
   of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in
   relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas
   at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had
   sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a
   century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We
   know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,
   Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
      lecture 8._

SAINT VALERY.

   The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of
   William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.
   1066.

SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.

      See PICTONES.

SAIONES.

   "The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the
   Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured
   than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the
   magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a
   sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by
   which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be
   summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the
   stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his
   power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio
   was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian
   Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The
   Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.
   They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave
   Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to
   them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more
   important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was
   frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some
   wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a
   person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of
   sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.
   … The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the
   most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout
   Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy
   Roman's house."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

SAJO, Battle of the (1241).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.

   The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 86._

SAKKARAH, Tablet of.

   An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and
   now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.

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

SALADIN: The Empire of.

   Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
   empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
   to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
   soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
   acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
   shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
   they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
   Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
   The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
   called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
   prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
   interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
   were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
   his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
   Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
   to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
   Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
   leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
   he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
   sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
   the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
   the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
   proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
   the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
   to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
   effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
   that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
{2793}
   Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
   ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
   prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
   short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
   whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
   Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
   Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
   defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
   Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
   evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
   de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
   the western world and became a great figure in history. He
   died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
   The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
   Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
   (Job), a native Koord of Davin.

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 16._

   "Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of
   succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of
   his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,
   caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took
   possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the
   principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the
   Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form
   Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother
   of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the
   countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal
   emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made
   themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they
   held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of
   Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,
   and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem
   and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the
   power of his father; but all fell into disorder and
   confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between
   the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle
   of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his
   hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.
   On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder
   reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at
   Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until
   1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.
   The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon
   after by the Mongol invasion.

      _J. F. Michaud,
      History of the Crusades,
      books 9, 12-14._

      See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

SALADIN, The Tithe of.

   "In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the
   Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting
   of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person
   who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of
   Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a
   Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a
   bishop's clerk."

      _W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
      Jerusalem,
      chapter 15._

SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

SALAMANCA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

SALAMANCA, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.

SALAMIS, Cyprus,
   Battle of (B. C. 449).

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

   Battle of (B. C. 306).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
   War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.
   Great battle between Greeks and Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480.

SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Recovery by the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.
   The first settlement.

      See MASSACHUSETTS:
      A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
   Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
   The Witchcraft madness.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

SALERNO, Principality of.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

SALERNO, School of Medicine.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.

SALIAN FRANKS, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

   ----------SALIC LAW: Start--------

SALIC LAW, The.

   "A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
   Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
   you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
   the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
   crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
   the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
   celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
   public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
   of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
   illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
   to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
   law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
   towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
   really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
   I have already told you touching the double origin and the
   incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
   anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
   Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
   society. This character has influenced all the controversies
   of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
   to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
   Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
   conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
   the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
   compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
   in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
   Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
   through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
   prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
   from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
   tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
   anciently collected. …
{2794}
   We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
   have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
   recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
   language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
   transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
   lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
   explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
   down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
   reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
   the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
   apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
   political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
   procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
   mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
   When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
   essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
   fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
   which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
   article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
   and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
   males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
   in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
   order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
   certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
   in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 10._

      _E. F. Henderson,
      Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
      book 2, number 1._

SALIC LAW:
   Applied to the regal succession in France.

   Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,
   leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late
   king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the
   queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to
   Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and
   compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].
   Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in
   the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of
   the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown
   of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,
   through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The
   lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might
   the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the
   law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or
   heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from
   this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2._

   "In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned
   above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that
   which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the
   throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be
   fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not
   so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But
   however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip
   the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly
   confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his
   brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death
   the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only
   daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of
   Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the
   queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a
   daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor
   or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than
   any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion
   to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of
   valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great
   kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit
   before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of
   England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three
   French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the
   French crown.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Age,
      chapter 1, part 1._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.

SALICE, Battle of.

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

SALICES, Ad, Battle of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

SALINÆ.

   A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and
   salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SALINAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.

SALISBURY, Gemot of.

   William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in
   England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the
   exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring
   in accordance with the old English practice, that all
   landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should
   take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed
   at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of
   August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of
   substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,
   to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon
   as passed, was carried into immediate effect."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 55._

SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.

SALISHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

SALLUVIANS.

      See SALYES.

SALON, Origin of the French.

   See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.

SALONA, Ancient.

   "Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia
   suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only
   reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is
   true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator
   of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a
   Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the
   decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of
   the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the
   huge palace from which the modern capital of the province
   takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part
   found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as
   cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make
   Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was
   such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,
   navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have
   been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the
   city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns
   of the west."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN;
      _E. A. Freeman,
      Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice._

      _T. G. Jackson,
      Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
      chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2). _

{2795}

SALONICA.

   The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.

      See THESSALONICA.

SALONIKI, The kingdom of.

   The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in
   the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by
   the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of
   Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called
   the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the
   neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and
   conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of
   emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of
   Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was
   cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;
   but those who claimed it never made good their title by
   possession of the kingdom.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

SALOPIAN WARE.

   Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of
   the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable
   abundance—one white, the other a light red color.

      _L. Jewitt,
      Grave-Mounds,
      page 164. _

SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).

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

SALT, French tax on.

      See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).

      See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.

SALYES,
SALLUVIANS.

      The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in
      Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts
      and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east
      of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that
      town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as
      the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain
      which you may see from the highest point of the great
      amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from
      Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The
      Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the
      latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter
      responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to
      deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three
      years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius
      Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again
      defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain
      whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place
      afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general
      found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied
      with water from the surrounding hills, and here he
      established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of
      the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and
      that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapters 17 and 21._

SALZBURG, Origin of.

   "The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or
   Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests
   the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the
   Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected
   for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in
   central Europe."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 66._

SALZBURGERS, The.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.

SALZWEDEL.

      See BRANDENBURG.

SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

SAMANA, The proposed cession of.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.

   "As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and
   effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of
   Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to
   independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,
   the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued
   Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In
   former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel
   against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate
   Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the
   death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,
   as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever
   fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length
   instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an
   army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against
   him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and
   laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot
   that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That
   morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen
   retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.
   D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who
   had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or
   Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of
   Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or
   Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of
   Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes
   the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed
   and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The
   Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the
   Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.

      _C. R. Markham,
      General Sketch of the History of Persia,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN;
      _Sir J. Malcolm,
      History of Persia,
      volume 1, chapter 6_

      See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SAMARAH, Battle of.

   This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was
   killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his
   ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the
   Persians.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 10._

   ----------SAMARCAND: Start--------

SAMARCAND.

   Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.

      See SOGDIANA;
      and BOKHARA.

SAMARCAND: 6th Century.
   Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.

      See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.
   Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.

      See KHUAREZM.

{2796}

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.
   Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.

   When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of
   Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was
   its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive
   Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000
   men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty
   elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and
   the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The
   flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even
   with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they
   possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those
   who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;
   all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the
   Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent
   off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the
   future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after
   the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated
   artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either
   distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and
   relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A
   few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who
   were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year
   618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have
   described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on
   the face of the earth."

      _A. Vámbéry,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapter 8._

   "Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also
   one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three
   miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having
   castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 79._

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.
   The capital of Timour.

      See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.

SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.
   Seizure by the Russians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

   ----------SAMARCAND: End--------

SAMARIA.
SAMARITANS:
   Early history.
   The Kingdom of Israel.
   Overthrow by the Assyrians.

      See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

SAMARITANS:
   Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.

   After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the
   deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian
   conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many
   years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun
   with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we
   suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several
   refractory towns about twenty years after the death of
   Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the
   favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large
   bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted
   regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the
   former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city
   of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often
   applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other
   settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities
   on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 4, pages 215-216._

SAMARIA:
   After the Exile.

   In the second and third generations after the return of the
   Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by
   marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,
   "particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were
   longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service
   at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion
   of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The
   principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners
   into the community, and the high priest of that time, either
   Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes
   into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the
   Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and
   his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access
   of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,
   these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted
   them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the
   children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed
   the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their
   leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against
   the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It
   was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of
   King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the
   city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was
   followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of
   separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it
   was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose
   son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his
   Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of
   undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own
   members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God
   of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in
   Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was
   raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their
   temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the
   house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;
   they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had
   designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they
   proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his
   followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to
   their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and
   land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had
   been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received
   with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new
   semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in
   the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which
   was either the city that gave its name to the province or the
   town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an
   active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the
   founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually
   tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a
   community. They declared that they alone were the descendants
   of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its
   Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan
   people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon
   the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours
   was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria
   that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;
   it no longer bore a political character, but one of a
   religious tendency."

      _H. Graetz,
      History of the Jews,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 1)._

{2797}

   "While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans
   as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by
   Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own
   traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and
   Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this
   people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder
   and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return
   from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean
   form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although
   by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still
   predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for
   the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of
   tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below
   their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The
   later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show
   that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means
   complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable
   supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the
   remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly
   and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell
   by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted
   country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the
   ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period
   [of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility
   of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and
   implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other
   with more unmitigated bitterness."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 9. _

SAMARIA:
   Change of population by Alexander the Great.

   After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.
   C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian
   governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and
   planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen
   element in the motley population of Samaria."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      volume 3, chapter 34._

SAMARIA:
   Rebuilding of the city by Herod.

   One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself
   outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he
   did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,
   and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the
   descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their
   temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,
   however, to Sebaste—the August.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 11._

SAMARIA:
   Justinian's War.

   The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]
   induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all
   unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of
   Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or
   rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a
   desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their
   wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a
   defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the
   regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were
   sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the
   remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason
   by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000
   Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which
   converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and
   smoking wilderness."

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

   ----------SAMARIA: End--------

SAMARKAND.

      See SAMARCAND.

SAMBUCA, The.

   A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of
   huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together
   and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The
   Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use
   when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 20._

SAMIAN WARE.

   An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was
   in great repute among the ancients.

SAMMARINESI, The.

   The citizens of San Marino.

      See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

SAMNITE WARS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

SAMNITES, The.

   "The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time
   of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless
   already been for a considerable period in possession of the
   hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian
   plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further
   advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the
   other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the
   Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline
   of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century
   [B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and
   now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even
   moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their
   appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name
   of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of
   the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and
   the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was
   wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.
   C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the
   Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the
   fourth century mention first occurs of the separate
   confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from
   the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a
   colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with
   many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to
   resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of
   Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,
   Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians
   against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the
   circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.
   Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with
   difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of
   arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.
   Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …
   About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into
   the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in
   possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few
   unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 5._

SAMO, The Kingdom of.

      See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

{2798}

SAMOA.

   Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic
   islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator
   Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of
   13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.
   The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The
   population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred
   foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said
   to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,
   in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them
   in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years
   the trade of the islands became important, and German traders
   acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring
   about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United
   States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by
   joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of
   disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa
   were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held
   in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly
   guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of
   residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of
   the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of
   the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to
   elect their chief or king and choose the form of their
   government. The treaty created a supreme court, with
   jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped
   the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in
   Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal
   government for Apia, with an elected council under the
   presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.
   Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,
   and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.

      _Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._

      _R. L. Stevenson,
      A Foot-note to History._

      _G. H. Bates,
      Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,
      and Our Relations to Samoa
      (The Century, April and May, 1889)._

   ----------SAMOS: Start--------

SAMOS.
SAMIANS.

   The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia
   Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known
   as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about
   eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which
   separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of
   a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important
   members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
   COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek
   communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and
   advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in
   the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became
   subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,
   Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the
   age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great
   splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant
   centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by
   the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently
   fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians
   attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on
   this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions
   was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly
   and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers
   of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a
   perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly
   pursue its voyages without having first purchased a
   safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be
   something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all
   attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval
   power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating
   a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the
   coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;
   under his protection they united into a body, the interests
   and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre
   in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal
   capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and
   islands."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,
   for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,
   were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of
   Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,
   treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject
   to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of
   Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.
   It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.

SAMOS: B. C. 440.
   Revolt from Athens.
   Siege and subjugation.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SAMOS: B. C. 413.
   Overthrow of the oligarchy.
   Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.
   Antony and Cleopatra.

   The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was
   passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the
   Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with
   musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded
   with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 28._

SAMOS: A. D. 1824.
   Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

   ----------SAMOS: End--------

SAMOSATA.

      See COMMAGENE.

SAMOTHRACE.

   A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so
   elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the
   sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance
   from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the
   Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.

      _G. S. Faber,
      Mysteries of the Cabiri_

   "The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of
   union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of
   the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the
   Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy
   Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the
   Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the
   Hellenic world."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on the History of Rome,
      lecture 1._

SAN.

      See ZOAN.

SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SAN CARLOS, Battle of.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.

      See HAYTI.

{2799}

   ----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.
   Supposed visit by Drake.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;
      and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
   First exploration and naming of the Bay.
   Founding of the Mission.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
   Possession taken by the Americans.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
   The naming of the Golden Gate.
   The great Bay.

      See GOLDEN GATE.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.
   On the eve of the Gold discoveries.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.
   The Vigilance Committee.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.
   Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

   ----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------

SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN
WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

   The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question
   left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory
   of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for
   submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary
   question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made
   in the Treaty of Washington.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

   "The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides
   to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,
   personages among the most eminent of his subjects in
   jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on
   the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that
   the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through
   the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true
   interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,
   1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This
   Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,
   'confirms the United States in their claim to the important
   archipelago of islands lying between the continent and
   Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great
   Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in
   the history of the United States as a nation, without a
   question of disputed boundary between our territory and the
   possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"

      _C. Cushing,
      The Treaty of Washington,
      page 222._

   The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is
   a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of
   considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The
   combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The
   archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and
   the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the
   west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of
   Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is
   commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,
   been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is
   such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it
   almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the
   possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great
   Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the
   decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago
   became part of the recognized territory of the United States.

      _Viscount Milton,
      History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869]._

SAN MARINO, The Republic of.

   "The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
   political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
   Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
   crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
   ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
   persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
   Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
   earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
   free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
   sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
   undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
   before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
   the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
   Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
   his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
   the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
   Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
   the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
   was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
   Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
   sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
   sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
   Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
   claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
   included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
   Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
   the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
   he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
   Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
   superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
   superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
   century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
   sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
   considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
   Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
   therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
   mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
   lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
   willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
   State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
   Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
   Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
   invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
   is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
   sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
   old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
   has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
   Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
   than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
   territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
   incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
   to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
   at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
   which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
   It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
   1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
   altered. …
{2800}
   The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
   was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
   established, to which was given one-third of the
   representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
   20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
   agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
   general elections, for the Council is recruited by
   co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
   Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
   authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
   salary, and during their six months of office are free from
   all State burdens."

      _E. Armstrong,
      A Political Survival
      (Macmillan's Magazine, Jan., 1891)._

   "Between this miniature country and its institutions there is
   a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has
   for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is
   a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and
   fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in
   Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.
   Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded
   by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its
   gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of
   liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no
   means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On
   examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an
   oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from
   an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be
   compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have
   always really represented the mass of the people. It has been
   a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,
   and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a
   poor community, in which there were no powerful families to
   fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an
   enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their
   hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat
   of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in
   1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling
   establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.
   The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public
   spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That
   the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost
   unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little
   states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have
   long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them
   all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first
   place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its
   borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by
   their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte
   invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any
   part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to
   you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which
   might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,
   the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was
   so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal
   Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough
   bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth
   broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive
   communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,
   without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the
   freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of
   potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of
   the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom
   of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the
   map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which
   Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a
   situation comparable with that of the native states in India.
   A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;
   the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may
   be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and
   precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee
   criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents
   are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national
   plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized
   by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the
   state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own
   local affairs, without any annoying interference from an
   Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and
   their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes
   to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San
   Marinese."

      _A. B. Hart,
      The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
      (The Nation, February 1, 1894)._

SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,
   The liberation of Chile and Peru.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
      and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.

   The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama
   group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is
   in dispute.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
   Independence of Spain.
   Brief annexation to Mexico.
   Attempted Federations and their failure.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;

SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.

SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.

SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.

SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.

SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.

SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;
and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.

SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.

SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.

Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.

SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.

SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.

SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.

SAND LOT PARTY, The.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

{2801}

SANDEMANIANS.

   Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious
   views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure
   salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief
   was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so
   strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764
   he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at
   some other places, where his followers were called
   'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …
   The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at
   the time of the American Revolution], and many of them
   emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."

      _C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History.,
      volume 2. page 370._

SANDJAKS,
SANJAKS.

      See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.

SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

SANGALA.

   An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the
   easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He
   took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the
   inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 94._

SANHEDRIM, The.

   "Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the
   time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of
   scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct
   function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a
   judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To
   this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or
   Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word
   Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 50._

   "The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of
   all capital offences against the law; it had the power of
   inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great
   Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins
   of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The
   Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was
   a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of
   the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the
   Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman
   province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for
   the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate
   or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they
   seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman
   rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under
   the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
   people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in
   the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by
   them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 12._

SANHIKANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SANITARY COMMISSION,
   and Christian Commission, The United States.

   "Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,
   1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for
   75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they
   termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did
   not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that
   they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the
   armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested
   themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much
   good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough
   organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the
   government to give them recognition and moral support, and,
   after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized
   themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary
   Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its
   president. Their intention was to aid by their professional
   advice the medical department of the government service; but
   soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were
   greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became
   more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now
   entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged
   itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It
   gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the
   commission had an independent transportation of its own. It
   had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad
   ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of
   better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It
   secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier
   from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon
   had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a
   surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its
   energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It
   divided its services into several departments of duty.

   (1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection
   department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined
   thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition
   and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had
   also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the
   general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their
   reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of
   the army.

   (2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of
   twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in
   the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200
   auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to
   the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.
   One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'
   collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;
   another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a
   quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the
   distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally
   supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick
   and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.

   (3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its
   charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the
   government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or
   left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About
   7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly
   accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier
   might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,
   or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.
   Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children
   of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to
   minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,
   food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired
   and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On
   the great military lines these stations were permanently
   established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the
   Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for
   transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.
   It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to
   any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained
   pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that
   any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and
   especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It
   instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a
   soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place
   and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any
   hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.
   Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United
   States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,
   Salisbury, Richmond. …

{2802}

   (4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to
   minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish
   bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the
   surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in
   the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies
   of the East; another for the Military Department of the
   Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.

   (5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in
   personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the
   wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first
   organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more
   than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote
   letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,
   newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by
   reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary
   Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the
   people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than
   three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came
   from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of
   supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were
   derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of
   dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns
   comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs
   more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission
   emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary
   Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance
   of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and
   spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office
   was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large
   towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed
   the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along
   the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying
   man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It
   gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves
   of the dead. It had its religious services, its little
   extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible
   Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its
   publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies
   free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its
   purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its
   objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five
   millions of dollars in money and supplies."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 87 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. P. Brockett,
      Woman's Work in the Civil War._

      _Mrs. M, A. Livermore,
      My Story of the War._

      _K. P. Wormeley,
      The Other Side of the War._

      _The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes._

      _J. S. Newberry,
      The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley._

      _L. Moss,
      Annals of the United States Christian Commission._

SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

SANJAKS,
SANDJAKS.

      See BEY; also TIMAR.

SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.

   The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross
   of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles
   II.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

SANS ARCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANSCULOTTES.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

SANSKRIT.

   "The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the
   Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated
   form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch
   of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon
   became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal
   races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into
   the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who
   settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab
   and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta
   Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus
   moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),
   its principal later development being called Hindi, just as
   the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England
   was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India
   which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken
   language, when once its general form and character had been
   settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the
   learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by
   the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became
   more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.
   Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded
   only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian
   Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an
   intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of
   technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'
   with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or
   'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial
   designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed
   speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar
   purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and
   literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the
   original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the
   common dialect."

      _M. Williams,
      Indian Wisdom.,
      introduction, page xxviii._

SANTA ANNA, The career of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,
      and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

SANTA HERMANDAD.

      See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

{2803}

SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SANTALS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SANTEES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.

      See CALATRAVA.

SANTONES, The.

      See PICTONES.

SAPAUDIA.
   The early name of Savoy.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAPEIRES, The.

      See IBERIANS, EASTERN.

SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

SARACENIC EMPIRE.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SARACENIC SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

SARACENS, The name.

   "From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were
   confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general
   appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and
   Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a
   larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the
   wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more
   plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish
   character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most
   popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.
   2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western
   and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe
   on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,
   allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by
   strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a
   foreign language."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 50, and note._

   "Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing
   contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word
   from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the
   children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from
   Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.
   Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page
   55."

      _H. Milman,
      note to Gibbon, as above._

   The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,
   Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the
   East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to
   Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling
   between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was
   in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the
   time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1)._

   In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its
   application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races
   pretty generally.

      See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

   ----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------

SARAGOSSA:
   Origin.

      See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.
   Siege by the Franks.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

SARAGOSSA: A. D, 713.
   Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.
   Siege by Charlemagne.

         See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-
   Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.
   Fruitless siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Siege and capture by the French.
   Extraordinary defense of the city.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
   Siege by the French.

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

SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
   Battle and Spanish defeat.

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

   ----------SARAGOSSA: End--------

SARANGIANS.

   The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt
   anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the
   Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they
   were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5). _

SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SARATOGA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SARCEES (TINNEH).

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

   ----------SARDINIA: Start--------

SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.

   "The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability
   from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human
   footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to
   which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched
   themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive
   population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there
   when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,
   whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can
   only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been
   derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from
   Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;
   from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and
   south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax
   has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient
   architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the
   form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the
   thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are
   scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western
   parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in
   any other part of the world; but they resemble most the
   Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was
   partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the
   time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth
   and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the
   former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where
   their manners receded towards barbarism."

      _J. Kenrick,
      Phœnicia,
      chapter 4, section 3._

SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.
   Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.

      See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.

{2804}

SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.
   Taken by the Allies.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.

      See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.
   Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.

   See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.
   Retaken by Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.

   Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
   exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.

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

   ----------SARDINIA: End--------

   ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
   The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
   Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
   The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Overwhelming reverses.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   The French and Spaniards driven out.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
   Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
   Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.
   Passes of the Alps secured by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.
   French victory at Loano.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
   Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
   Treaty of peace.
   Cession of Savoy to the Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
   Piedmont taken by the French.
   Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.
   French evacuation of Piedmont.

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

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.
   Recovery of Piedmont by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.
   Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
   The king recovers his kingdom.
   Annexation of Genoa.
   Cession of part of Savoy to France.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:
      also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
   Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
   The defeat at Novara.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
   Death of Charles Felix.
   Accession of Charles Albert.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
   Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
   War with Austria.
   Defeat.
   Abdication of Charles Albert.
   Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
   In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
   The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
   Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
   creation of the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.

   ----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------

SARDIS.

   When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the
   overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first
   enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was
   directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous
   king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in
   wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired
   to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid
   city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured
   and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen
   days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,
   which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

   Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of
   the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor
   attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again
   plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and
   Athenians.

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

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SARGASSO SEA, The.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

SARISSA, The.

      See PHALANX.

SARK, Battle of (1448).

   This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
   English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
   The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland.
      chapter 19._

SARMATIA.
SARMATIANS.

   "The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by
   the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who
   occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of
   the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the
   Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these
   nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,
   military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and
   Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were
   nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian
   dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other
   side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women
   among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than
   the men."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

   The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region
   of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them
   to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the
   modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have
   understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps
   part of the south of Russia."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

{2805}

SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.

   It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the
   inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the
   Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is
   represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of
   all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged
   under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and
   Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual
   league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The
   Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the
   Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,
   and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.
   167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the
   Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of
   all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which
   he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of
   frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the
   impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the
   semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as
   repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at
   Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the
   peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes
   she had no more strength to overcome.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 68._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapters 4-6._

      See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.

SARN HELEN, The.

   A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
   Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
   Helena caused it to be made.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.
   The founding of the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

SARUS, Battle of the.

   One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
   A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 24._

SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

SASSANIAN DYNASTY.

   Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a
   new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow
   of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,
   founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the
   family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to
   some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter
   progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,
   itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the
   earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SASTEAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

SATRAP.
SATRAPIES.

   Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of
   the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and
   heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely
   together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he
   left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a
   single well-ordered system, permanently established
   everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,
   instance of that form of government which, taking its name
   from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally
   as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main
   principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the
   whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one
   mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
   fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
   and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a
   variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to
   whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its
   powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his
   satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate
   governments—a number which must have varied at different
   times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.
   Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
   governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the
   revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of
   order, and the general supervision of the territory. These
   satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any
   class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,
   but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or
   death at any moment, without other formality than the
   presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they
   remained in office they were despotic—they represented the
   Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …
   They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
   tribute on the several towns and villages within their
   jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called
   sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts
   within their province, whose office was regarded as one of
   great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such
   sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear
   of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the
   monarch."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
      chapter 7._

SATTAGYDÆ, The.

      See GEDROSIANS.

SATURNALIA, The Roman.

   "The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication
   [of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the
   Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally
   over seven days, during which all social distinctions were
   ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;
   and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to
   hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were
   taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed
   by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro
   mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during
   this festival; and when we remember the other usage of
   suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel
   beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies
   between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become
   more apparent."

      _C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      chapter 6. _

SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

{2806}

SAUCY CASTLE.

      See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.

SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.

SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).

   A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes
   in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the
   Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which
   is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SAULTEUR, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).

SAUROMATÆ, The.

      See SCYTHIANS.

SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.
   The founding of the city.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Activity of the Liberty Party.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.
   Taken and occupied by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.
   Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
   Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
   at the mouth of the river.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
      CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
   Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
   and sealing up of the port.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.
   Confederate evacuation.
   Sherman in possession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

SAVANNAHS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SAVENAY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

SAVERNE:
    Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE.

SAVONA, The Pope at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:
   The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.
   The founders of the House of Savoy.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
   Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
   in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
   Creation of the duchy.
   Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

   "The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
   immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
   of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
   several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
   their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
   the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
   growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
   seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
   with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
   11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
   earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
   districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
   and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
   Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
   of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
   was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
   of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
   most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
   Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
   a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
   predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
   those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
   Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
   on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
   Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
   sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
   centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
   own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
   Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
   must be remembered that their position as princes at once
   Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
   dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
   secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
   Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
   of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
   incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
   still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
   through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
   the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
   royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
   next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
   the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
   [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
   plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
   these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
   a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
   reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
   north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
   time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
   Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
   into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
   The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
   surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
   the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
   the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
   transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
   annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
   districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
   Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
{2807}
   The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
   ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
   [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
   Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
   changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
   city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
   counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
   been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
   that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
   began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
   acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
   famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
   received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
   was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

   In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both
   sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the
   Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and
   Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion
   of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,
   surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of
   the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian
   dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed
   [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.
   … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house
   consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which
   this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house
   of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great
   extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,
   among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and
   Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of
   Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …
   Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],
   the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking
   in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as
   Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian
   dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the
   sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the
   Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy
   now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took
   the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.
   His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,
   Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9,
      volume 2, chapters 1-6._

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
   Alliance with Venice and Naples.
   War with Milan and Florence.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
   Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
   Loss of the Vidommate.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.
   Conquest by the French and restoration to
   the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
   End of the French occupation.
   Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
   His reconstruction of the state.
   Treaties with the Swiss.
   War with the Waldenses.
   Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
   Settlement of government at Turin.

   "The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
   terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
   Piedmont was born again.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the
   very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a
   third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by
   five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the
   trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work
   of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was
   providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford
   to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

       See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

   After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France
   at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,
   the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or
   within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with
   the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,
   to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of
   Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored
   to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and
   Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be
   occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the
   differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the
   dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original
   cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the
   five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to
   retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up
   VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti
   and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of
   settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert
   found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No
   words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the
   French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their
   neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself
   at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at
   this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had
   had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own
   State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same
   moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to
   avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it
   unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with
   his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the
   country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House
   of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,
   etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and
   most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of
   the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and
   felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the
   Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full
   well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these
   foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and
   that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be
   indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'
   Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to
   secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive
   dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which
   made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally
   urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences
   with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de
   Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power
   of the confederates.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

{2808}

   It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part
   with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it
   was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.
   A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst
   whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had
   introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …
   Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.
   … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of
   the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel
   Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid
   aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause
   to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's
   camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into
   opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke
   of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with
   Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even
   Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their
   Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat
   stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty
   of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne
   retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered
   Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais
   also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of
   Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the
   recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on
   all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the
   Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the
   Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by
   which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same
   treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and
   worship to those of her subjects who had embraced
   Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in
   fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in
   Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire
   how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in
   general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the
   Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian
   ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at
   800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new
   tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered
   into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own
   creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,
   identifying themselves especially with the disciples of
   Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted
   sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who
   stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and
   revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the
   enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys
   continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged
   district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a
   safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."
   In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so
   much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses
   "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the
   Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent
   4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de
   la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its
   horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of
   La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;
   and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant
   volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it
   was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his
   subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated
   checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour
   on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full
   amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their
   own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented
   to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to
   a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour
   satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud
   reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the
   bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand
   the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in
   opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In
   his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel
   Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings
   of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the
   regeneration of the country could only find their development
   in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of
   the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the
   people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a
   beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism
   in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the
   prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means
   than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which
   Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this
   great prince was the nationalization of the State. He
   established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that
   city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,
   and the university which had been provisionally opened at
   Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan
   honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the
   French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It
   dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel
   Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.
   … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine
   provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the
   dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."
   Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,
   Charles Emanuel.

      _A. Gallenga,
      History of Piedmont,
      volume 3, chapter 1._

{2809}

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
   Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
   Profitable infidelities in war.
   The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

   Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was
   enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son
   Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active
   in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound
   him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the
   League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he
   seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved
   himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of
   Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in
   exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to
   Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved
   unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel
   brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.
   This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose
   male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see
   the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor
   Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of
   Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and
   Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the
   policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a
   daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till
   nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his
   predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who
   succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at
   first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came
   of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His
   great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy
   had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime
   republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and
   to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in
   1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But
   Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a
   dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke
   off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of
   Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and
   successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the
   great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long
   dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he
   first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His
   faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with
   the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few
   years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for
   Sardinia."

      _R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 12, section 9._

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.
   French invasion of the Vaudois.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.
   Invasion by the French.
   Peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
   French invasion.
   Cession of territory to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
   Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
   Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline War.
   Alliance with France.
   Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
   French invasion.
   Extension of territory.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.
   Alliance with France against Spain.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
   Alliance with France against Spain.
   Civil war and foreign war.-
   Sieges of Turin.
   Territory restored.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.
   Second persecution of the Waldenses.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.
   Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.
   Overrun by the armies of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.
   Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

      See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.
   French victory at Marsaglia.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
   Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
   Treaty with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.
   Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.
   Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,
   with the title of King.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.
   Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.
   Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
   Piedmont taken by the French.
   Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.
   Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.
   Final cession of Savoy to France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------

SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

SAWÂD, THE.

   "The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole
   fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit
   to the Persian Gulf."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 26, foot-note._

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

      See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

SAXE-COBURG,
SAXE-GOTHA,
SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;
      and WEIMAR.

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

      See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

   The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the
   coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,
   which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

   ----------SAXONS: Start--------

SAXONS, The.

   "In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
   the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
   later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
   who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
   130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
   employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
   Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
   inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
   is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
   supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
   strength and power in a moment.
{2810}
   It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
   Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
   known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
   The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
   been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
   nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
   between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
   implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
   occasional combination for attack or defence."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name
   Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of
   Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more
   specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,
   and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,
   and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons
   on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the
   Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The
   reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was
   a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us
   Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name
   for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The
   Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one
   in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman
   and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only
   question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic
   (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,
   that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in
   the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,
   and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,
   or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of
   the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.
   Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of
   the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon
   islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of
   the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was
   whose name eventually comprised populations as different as
   the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus
   in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,
   Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was
   German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,
      section 48._

      See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;
      and ANGLES AND JUTES.

SAXONS:
   The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

   "At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,
   Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend
   Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then
   chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon
   pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we
   suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a
   contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if
   not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford
   under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the
   kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point
   of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered
   on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge
   with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and
   your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just
   sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the
   duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming
   along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the
   curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that
   nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them
   is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at
   once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business
   of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more
   than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the
   most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when
   expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his
   path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always
   succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he
   never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.
   Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather
   than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,
   not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a
   tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the
   invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the
   crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best
   chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then
   again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the
   hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own
   country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their
   prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast
   lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of
   death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth
   man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more
   lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that
   they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying
   themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting
   themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think
   the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their
   gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of
   ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 3._

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

   In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius
   brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great
   and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is
   mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,
   whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has
   been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles
   and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in
   part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own
   subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the
   Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at
   once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to
   defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in
   Normandy or Picardy."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 3._

SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.
   Conquests in Britain.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

{2811}

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
   Conquest by Charlemagne.

   "In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great
   league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one
   point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on
   the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse
   and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,
   active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,
   operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered
   them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to
   all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …
   They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands
   scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon
   beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at
   different times, all those on the coast of France and in the
   British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and
   more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on
   land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,
   constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental
   countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a
   manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost
   their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all
   nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of
   the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering
   in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation
   ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.
   Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude
   of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent
   tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present
   know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and
   continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,
   accomplishing great things by desultory and individual
   efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and
   comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst
   them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,
   and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was
   for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief
   might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at
   the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under
   Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed
   to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was
   completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his
   frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very
   existence of the nations around."

      _G. P. R. James,
      History of Charlemagne,
      book 3._

   For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,
   of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank
   kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them
   among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.
   Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit
   themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they
   repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the
   conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to
   have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done
   in it before him. His first expedition into their country was
   undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from
   the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It
   was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters
   of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons
   called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected
   with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who
   destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in
   the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to
   guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next
   summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser
   with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and
   gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made
   Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and
   there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified
   the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large
   numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in
   May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who
   could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor
   bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a
   Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and
   friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in
   Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising
   which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and
   Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there
   were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and
   destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of
   the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and
   at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons
   suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the
   Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and
   slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this
   reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at
   Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the
   Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten
   desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted
   Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—
   and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,
   the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very
   color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave
   way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the
   Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies
   against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt
   to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve
   years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the
   Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them
   were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;
   others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great
   rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors
   on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The
   Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of' Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapters 16-17._

   ----------SAXONS: End--------

{2812}

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

   "The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the
   latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a
   Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or
   Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character
   which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking
   portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their
   name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;
   we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some
   parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that
   nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same
   influence which the same causes exercised over the
   Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced
   into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic
   language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech
   at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic
   speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely
   retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently
   find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the
   Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech
   and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin
   must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in
   nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants
   of the Danish districts of England."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 4._

   ----------SAXONY: Start--------

SAXONY:
   The old Duchy.

   "The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the
   Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from
   France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern
   or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the
   Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some
   sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable
   of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands
   gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on
   as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon
   duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.
   1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title
   of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of
   those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the
   ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to
   the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name
   may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of
   Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian
   remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic
   conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these
   lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it
   was within their limits that the various states arose which
   have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the
   descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial
   lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so
   far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held
   their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of
   Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one
   Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the
   usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took
   their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,
   the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The
   Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was
   raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it
   was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of
   Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and
   afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title
   remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 1._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.
   The Imperial House.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
   Revolt against Henry IV.

   The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the
   imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of
   Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry
   IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority
   encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his
   rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked
   their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,
   and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their
   necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,
   distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,
   the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke
   out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,
   from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,
   a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a
   residence upon a commanding height. After useless
   negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he
   then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here
   and there it began to be said that he must be entirely
   abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the
   cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some
   time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."
   Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,
   enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a
   strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early
   summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have
   restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his
   headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of
   extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and
   their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,
   at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order
   resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech
   [against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce
   hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the
   Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.
   … It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the
   mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though
   of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it
   was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening
   of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by
   kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own
   camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was
   crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to
   have established the imperial throne again." But little more
   than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope
   Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted
   by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained
   a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next
   year he died.

      _C. T. Lewis,
      History of Germany,
      book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 142._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.
   The origin of the electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

{2813}

SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
   The dissolution of the old duchy.

   In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and
   Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND
   GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,
   in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of
   Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud
   died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the
   name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to
   the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the
   son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to
   renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was
   succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick
   Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young
   Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of
   his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his
   own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions
   still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the
   tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg
   region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the
   princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful
   in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and
   raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose
   a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter
   embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,
   with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter
   was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the
   Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations
   were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly
   summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused
   to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally
   declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"
   was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed
   Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his
   states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of
   injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,
   had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command
   Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,
   Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of
   Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,
   levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,
   which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of
   their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,
   in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were
   too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually
   fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he
   took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose
   daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years
   he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates
   in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were
   divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part
   of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the
   remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When
   Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he
   had recovered were divided between his three sons.

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      book 4 (volume 1)._

   Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
   fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
   —Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
   Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
   Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 5._

      See, also,
      SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
   The later Duchy and Electorate.
   The House of Wettin.
   Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

   "When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in
   1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was
   given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,
   Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants
   in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor
   Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of
   Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of
   Thuringen."

      _Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, page 426._

   This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
   name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
   Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
   "The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
   [1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
   individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
   combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
   by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
   separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
   Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
   ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
   great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
   earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
   fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
   till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
   primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
   but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
   never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
   consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
   race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
   succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
   governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
   then made a partition from which began the separation of the
   Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
   in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
   boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
   besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
   Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
   country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
   Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
   the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
   may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
   you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
   is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
   territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
   Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
   city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
   at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
   Albertine Line. …
{2814}
   As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
   Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
   their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
   Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
   the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
   Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
   Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
   (Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
   marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
   divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
   was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
   Diet of Worms in 1521.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

   He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the
   Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.
   He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his
   term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),
   having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was
   Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der
   Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;
   lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him
   into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever
   since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor
   in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of
   Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and
   little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,
   to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was
   Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had
   such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old
   religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the
   new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two
   years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern
   parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,
   and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in
   English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and
   War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant
   cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said
   cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him
   to the second rank ever since.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

   This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we
   left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the
   Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with
   Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz
   kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his
   Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed
   into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which
   dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day
   [1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as
   Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or
   honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,
   diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken
   small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,
   Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere
   genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:
   Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,
   etc.]."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Prinzenraub
      (Essays, volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Shoberl,
      Historical Account of the House of Saxony._

SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.
   Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.

         See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.
   The Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
      1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
      also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
   The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
   in the electorate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

SAXONY: A. D. 1539.
   Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.

      See: A. D. 1533-1546.

SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
   Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
   Transfer of the electorate to him.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

SAXONY: A. D. 1619.
   Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,
   against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
   Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
   His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
   The battle of Breitenfeld.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.
   The Elector and his army in Bohemia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

SAXONY: A. D. 1633.
   Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
   Desertion of the Protestant cause.
   The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
   Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SAXONY: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SAXONY: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.
   The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
   Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
   Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SAXONY: A. D. 1733.
   Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,
   enforced by Russia and Austria.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
   The War of the Austrian Succession:
   Alliance against Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
   Subjugation by Prussia.
   The Peace of Dresden.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
   Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
   Causes of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1756.
   Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
   Occupied by the Austrians.
   Mostly recovered by Frederick.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.

SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
   The end and results of the Seven Years War.
   The electorate restored.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

{2815}

SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

   The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
   Napoleon, and is made a king.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1807.
   Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1809.
   Risings against the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
   Occupied by the Allies.
   Regained by the French.
   Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
   French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
   Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
   The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
   French surrender of Dresden.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
      to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
   The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAXONY: A. D. 1817.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).
   Revolutionary outbreak.
   Concessions to the people.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

SAXONY: A. D. 1849.
   Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity to Prussia.
   Union with the North German Confederation.
   See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Embraced in the new German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
      1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).

   ----------SAXONY: End--------

SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

      See WALES, PRINCE OF.

SCALDIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Scheldt.

SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.

   "Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it
   is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to
   commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,
   and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to
   whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit
   confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in
   society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among
   the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the
   Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in
   every case of law or property in which the past had to be
   applied to the present. Before the introduction of
   Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written
   documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of
   writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the
   pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record
   were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The
   scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of
   wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …
   The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian
   priests were established through the country. They were
   superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the
   art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to
   maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of
   the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

      _S. Laing,
      The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
      chapter 1._

   "At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising
   their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian
   skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in
   mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair
   (872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as
   thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry
   was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the
   professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion
   presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age
   of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald
   he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he
   would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds
   became a very significant factor in the literary development
   of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

      _F. W. Horn,
      History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
      part 1, chapter 1._

SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;
      also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

SCAMANDER, The.

      See TROJA.

SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

      See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

   ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   Early history.

   "Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the
   Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of
   the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must
   treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as
   compilations made up from isolated and detached
   traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was
   described, and in which the links and the connections between
   the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of
   the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to
   a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great
   temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the
   same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern
   historian to do? In the first place he must take the
   contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his
   supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted
   by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the
   two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while
   in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent
   evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the
   glimmers of light that have reached us."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      Early History of Sweden
      (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9)._

{2816}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   Their relationships in language and blood.

   "Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden
   it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical
   boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.
   But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in
   actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected
   with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick
   partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a
   Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are
   two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or
   German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to
   the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the
   Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,
   though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the
   real differences being exaggerated by differences of
   orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the
   ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old
   German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather
   than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,
   is the common property of all, and so is the old literature
   with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief
   heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is
   preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it
   may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians
   denominate it Old Norse. …

      See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.

   The histories of the three countries are alike in their
   general character though different in detail. Denmark when we
   have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true
   historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the
   parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan
   and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the
   Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it
   ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German
   alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and
   in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the
   kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the
   civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,
   for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.
   Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern
   neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and
   indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern
   provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when
   kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In
   the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term
   being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the
   blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is
   it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists
   agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),
   or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no
   means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of
   either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the
   German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North
   Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in
   Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported
   themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves
   towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and
   Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations
   intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added
   that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each
   side of the question."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Nationalities of Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 37._

      See, also,
      GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      page 236._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
   Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.
   Formation of the Three Kingdoms.

   "At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian
   peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.
   A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the
   kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes
   separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these
   three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the
   Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general
   European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the
   half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the
   Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held
   in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical
   extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.
   Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are
   from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.
   The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save
   during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish
   frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the
   two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under
   Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,
   which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian
   nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These
   were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late
   in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched
   far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an
   indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as
   the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the
   northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the
   Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian
   settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were
   those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or
   Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that
   of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'
   to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each
   side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay
   on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is
   guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and
   Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries
   towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,
   immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther
   to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of
   the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and
   Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the
   southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land
   between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land
   thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to
   the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the
   course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to
   spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had
   thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for
   extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and
   Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic
   conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 11, section 1._

{2817}

   "Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in
   Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each
   presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little
   territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of
   human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of
   'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and
   small combinations of these, which had gradually formed
   themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with
   them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this
   state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his
   country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of
   it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,
   Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary
   process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who
   conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's
   birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known
   only by inference and computation; but, by the latest
   reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.
   The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.
   D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the
   out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more
   years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had
   conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and
   success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over
   70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud
   Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,
   to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant
   (tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,
   or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
   the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and
   settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,
   settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of
   all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

      _T. Carlyle,
      The Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 1._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.
   Introduction of Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
   The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
   Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
   The Folkungas in Sweden.
   Rise of Denmark.
   The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

   "A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute
   the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of
   Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole
   of Norway to his dominions.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042

   The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the
   Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,
   appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men
   with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might
   have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and
   West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell
   asunder on his death and his successors sink again into
   insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page
   illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the
   Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the
   Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the
   attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise
   itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from
   their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern
   shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,
   were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness
   was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised
   and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to
   its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his
   power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a
   death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes
   who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark
   relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to
   the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar
   it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased
   within the country, new enemies arose around it. The
   Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.
   The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,
   Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now
   appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose
   rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich
   cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to
   assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by
   strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came
   to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A
   count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for
   fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the
   country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious
   house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in
   anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the
   assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared
   of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real
   beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from
   1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became
   the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite
   establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of
   his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards
   the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a
   new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A
   powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the
   old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of
   mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without
   children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The
   infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,
   and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as
   the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as
   natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As
   regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness
   of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th
   century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the
   conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of
   Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and
   Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their
   unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed
   by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed
   some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of
   succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted
   the country."
{2818}
   In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the
   crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of
   these descendants among themselves, and the contests which
   were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with
   imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon
   unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A
   prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the
   10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined
   later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to
   call himself its King. These were times indeed in which
   conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,
   and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.
   Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than
   they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the
   three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no
   interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived
   it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been
   marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by
   the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after
   the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list
   of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord
   the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise
   herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar
   not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence
   which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The
   new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to
   the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert
   was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,
   on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking
   (which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as
   the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back
   Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,
   and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade
   within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving
   the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish
   monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter
   enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of
   Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the
   combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was
   only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former
   privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen
   years possession of the better part of Scania and its
   revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all
   sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for
   their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the
   reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy
   prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his
   death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,
   became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had
   married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of
   Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the
   attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,
   supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,
   secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,
   who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as
   well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won
   the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf
   himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by
   the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already
   shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in
   Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the
   banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had
   reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she
   easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and
   making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her
   nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as
   her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn
   meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three
   Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of
   Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was
   achieved."

      _C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Geijer,
      History of the Swedes,
      volume 1, chapters 3-5._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
   Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
   Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
   The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
   Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
   The introduction of the Reformation.

   The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which
   Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,
   under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the
   right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by
   the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there
   were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be
   governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the
   common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated
   to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved
   the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several
   bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by
   Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was
   turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the
   Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the
   island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.
   The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son
   of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in
   1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their
   king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose
   Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was
   compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost
   Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of
   Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and
   crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all
   the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,
   recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.
   became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein
   from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period
   with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after
   Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in
   Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the
   Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October
   1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now
   enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King
   was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern
   provinces of Sweden.
{2819}
   Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The
   Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by
   renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly
   establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died
   in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son
   and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive
   connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his
   accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern
   towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;
   and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,
   England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in
   his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle
   [Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the
   administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him
   with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.
   … In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near
   Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French
   sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a
   battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having
   proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected
   in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the
   administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an
   interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way
   for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;
   though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a
   sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture
   was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake
   Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in
   spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but
   expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd
   1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,
   after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that
   Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of
   Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.
   Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was
   admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the
   command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly
   manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he
   took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …
   The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a
   place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to
   proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through
   the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection
   of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in
   all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,
   … a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,
   talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,
   afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither
   by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a
   hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,
   in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly
   entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later
   his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,
   and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its
   love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in
   peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his
   pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of
   Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;
   he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the
   people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"
   out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were
   wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but
   the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,
   was protracted two years. During this period his command was
   legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,
   at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to
   him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The
   Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from
   Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve
   Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish
   crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution
   that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of
   Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The
   Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the
   Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to
   recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied
   that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for
   their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of
   Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm
   surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped
   to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an
   expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him
   a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the
   castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur
   until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating
   his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by
   examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of
   the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …
   Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in
   1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had
   studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The
   Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them
   his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with
   Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced
   to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils
   of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the
   Reformation was introduced.

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. B. Watson,
      The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa._

      _A. Alberg,
      Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times._

{2820}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
   (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
   Accession of Frederick I.

   (Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
   The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
   Wars with Russia and Denmark.
   The Baltic question.
   Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
   his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
   Resulting hostilities.

   "Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very
   religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran
   country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the
   lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and
   also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as
   he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,
   they all wished to maintain the union of the three
   Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,
   therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other
   great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

   (1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character
   of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great
   victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and
   Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later
   time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the
   peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

   (2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,
   and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,
   and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish
   commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of
   the Hanseatic League.

   (3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of
   territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,
   however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was
   certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and
   which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the
   great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

   His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,
   already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and
   the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks
   to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea
   on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for
   Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest
   which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the
   death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the
   province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously
   fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This
   was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;
   herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium
   Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face
   with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the
   possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great
   Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to
   anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help
   to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,
   recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric
   concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North
   began to assume their natural relation to each other. The
   Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English
   sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor
   as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of
   Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the
   hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in
   an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North
   Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself
   produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms
   of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish
   nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for
   Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,
   the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the
   great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he
   made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence
   of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than
   abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped
   back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious
   man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a
   certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the
   yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to
   drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was
   one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to
   Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared
   to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;
   thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and
   foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of
   his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his
   marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion
   with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all
   years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period
   of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,
   and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the
   Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the
   other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son
   Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of
   Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden
   with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund
   succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost
   certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,
   in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the
   consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and
   Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,
   the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would
   have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to
   consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without
   forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of
   extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been
   observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the
   people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,
   the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the
   best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied
   upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's
   death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an
   usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs
   increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund
   came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000
   crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the
   restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had
   already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems
   little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We
   are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know
   that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In
   1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been
   chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When
   Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he
   could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the
   kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently
   confirmed the power of the Regent.
{2821}
   The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,
   which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in
   1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be
   only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the
   crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a
   revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was
   massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon
   his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have
   begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000
   Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on
   September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by
   which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send
   away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was
   obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following
   year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the
   remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,
   1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led
   to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which
   played such an important part in the history of Northern
   Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly
   crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa
   monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus
   Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the
   descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince
   who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso
   facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any
   change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.
   Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one
   crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

      _C. R. L. Fletcher,
      Gustavus Adolphus,
      introduction._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. G. Geijer,
      History of the Swedes,
      volume 1, chapters 9-14._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
   Accession of Christian III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
   Accession of Frederick II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
   Accession of Christian IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.
   Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
   The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

   On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,
   did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained
   without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will
   of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),
   with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of
   the people could be made known in the customary manner. After
   an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …
   Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been
   brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some
   just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid
   down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young
   king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of
   Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the
   first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom
   when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of
   Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50
   years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that
   long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and
   violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her
   boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her
   neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were
   united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and
   both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and
   were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as
   well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.
   Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive
   and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in
   dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and
   Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year
   of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with
   Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were
   unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was
   once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he
   secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden
   renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes
   gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the
   end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of
   Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the
   Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of
   Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,
   Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to
   continue for several years; though hostilities were not all
   the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time
   practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large
   area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important
   towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which
   makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been
   united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to
   be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,
   also a long distance within the lines of the Russian
   population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The
   troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and
   extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to
   seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had
   sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of
   Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the
   crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for
   the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of
   Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring
   this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with
   Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from
   the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and
   security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the
   Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years
   of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with
   as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war
   between these two countries continued; … the advantages being
   generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not
   always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the
   mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.
   "The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to
   Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from
   the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming
   Swedish territory. …
{2822}
   The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At
   the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which
   was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,
   the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been
   reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively
   in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion
   and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise
   than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only
   supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of
   legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong
   influences on his side in European high political and
   religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by
   the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.
   of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of
   Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to
   the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He
   was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had
   engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of
   Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to
   stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he
   promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were
   prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.
   Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and
   sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being
   generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the
   winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,
   carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."
   Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish
   not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather
   protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with
   peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In
   August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet
   and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place
   was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again
   the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is
   declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one
   in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors
   and cares to the interior administration of his country. In
   the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of
   the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the
   completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of
   Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."
   The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,
   January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to
   transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to
   those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and
   approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of
   Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He
   [Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and
   the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,
   with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did
   not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26
   the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that
   city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …
   Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg
   surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by
   Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many
   towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus
   rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the
   frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of
   1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the
   groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the
   neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right
   shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement
   at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being
   inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an
   armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent
   kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms
   were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the
   elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.
   Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other
   towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be
   accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was
   declared free between the two nations."

      _J. L. Stevens,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapters 3 and 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _B. Chapman,
      History of Gustavus Adolphus,
      chapters 2-4._

      See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
   The Protestant Alliance.
   Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
   The Treaty of Lübeck.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.
   The country overrun by Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
   Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
   The relief of Stralsund.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
   The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   His death.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.
   Treaty of Barwalde with France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
   Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
   The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
   Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
   War between Sweden and Denmark.
   Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
   The Peace of Bromsebro.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
   Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
   Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
   and Denmark and in Germany.
   Establishment of absolutism.

   "Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,
   had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess
   Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the
   year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency
   was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had
   inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the
   most learned and accomplished woman of her time.
{2823}
   She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste
   for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while
   she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent
   money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.
   … As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she
   had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,
   fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,
   Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished
   crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In
   the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into
   parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and
   the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The
   clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the
   oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated
   to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had
   granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken
   from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war
   seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to
   marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,
   entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in
   earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she
   proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl
   Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of
   the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of
   Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted
   by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and
   by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her
   profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the
   property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had
   conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her
   old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her
   wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally
   accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling
   through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and
   entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her
   cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the
   Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to
   Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,
   nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the
   council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to
   gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all
   schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she
   died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of
   Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder
   and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in
   active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan
   Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,
   drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a
   soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with
   which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a
   three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a
   worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus
   Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to
   keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the
   increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to
   attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced
   into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the
   excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against
   them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving
   only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he
   turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace
   signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of
   Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,
   Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained
   natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first
   Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the
   power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his
   attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five
   times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to
   Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly
   destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it
   seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the
   English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish
   king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with
   the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing
   to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the
   winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By
   the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under
   the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,
   was only four years old when he became king. … Every
   department of the government was left to suffer from
   mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences
   of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were
   unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of
   money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money
   from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired
   out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of
   things the young king grew up without receiving any very
   careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th
   year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere
   exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in
   conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded
   with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in
   the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.

   Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
   opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
   forces could form a junction with the French troops then
   encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
   unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
   losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
   result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
   rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
   declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
   had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
   money, resolved for the future to take the management of
   public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
   the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
   found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
   land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
   The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
   supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
   whose ships were burnt or sunk.
{2824}
   This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
   Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
   hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
   heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
   daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
   field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
   Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
   leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
   several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
   the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
   ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
   Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
   Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
   in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
   enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
   which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
   and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
   by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
   recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
   during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
   Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
   this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
   in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
   wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
   restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
   humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
   diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
   the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
   attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
   unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
   of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

      _E. C. Otté,
      Scandinavian History,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Tuttle,
      History of Prussia to 1740,
      chapter 5._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3)._

      _G. B. Malleson,
      Battle-Fields of Germany,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
   Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
   Accession of Frederick III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
   Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
   Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
   Accession of Christian V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
   In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
      A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.
   Accession of Charles XII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
   The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
   and how he met it
   First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

   "Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself
   the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and
   Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,
   the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of
   Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all
   of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the
   king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It
   was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the
   supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had
   no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but
   the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to
   be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his
   court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and
   represented him as such to their respective masters. The
   Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his
   real character: he did not even know it himself, until the
   storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity
   of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain
   concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his
   youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first
   was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,
   Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the
   Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …
   The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a
   conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the
   Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He
   wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of
   Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he
   resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims
   upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a
   favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had
   lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the
   sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King
   of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories
   that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,
   Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the
   Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the
   effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.
   He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and
   took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that
   moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he
   never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the
   idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two
   conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he
   indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he
   reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly
   been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never
   clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to
   have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether
   there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;
   certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,
   not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to
   set an example of continence to his soldiers. …
{2825}
   He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of
   his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his
   brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men
   were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering
   upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head
   against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His
   dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp
   taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate
   siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This
   spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,
   the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg
   Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On
   the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of
   Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the
   assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein
   was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from
   England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …
   They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in
   danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first
   campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,
   and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet
   consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the
   squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.
   The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than
   six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty
   of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke
   of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him
   from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly
   at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the
   capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at
   the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great
   skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to
   abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had
   much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had
   now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to
   march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter
   had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head
   of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed
   with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none
   of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one
   good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without
   fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000
   regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it
   in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar
   learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200
   transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The
   Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not
   confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he
   left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'
   motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th
   of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only
   8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of
   his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.
   "The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious
   shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of
   the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost
   above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in
   their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the
   river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,
   surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing
   the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at
   Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the
   work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he
   said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

      _Voltaire,
      History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
      books 1-2._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
   Accession of Frederick IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
   Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
   Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
   Charles at the summit of his career.

   "Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,
   retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in
   training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the
   field against his only remaining adversary, the King of
   Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered
   Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very
   place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.
   Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered
   into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview
   which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was
   agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of
   50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,
   having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent
   the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was
   effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the
   burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high
   wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from
   the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their
   intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500
   prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital
   of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns
   and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next
   passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and
   driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost
   precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little
   satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the
   very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the
   czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed
   the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means
   of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not
   tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of
   Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the
   treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be
   immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative
   remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The
   deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of
   arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where
   after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.
   Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but
   marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.
{2826}
   That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a
   contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince
   obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable
   rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental
   fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile
   preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the
   schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk
   (May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate
   Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the
   diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of
   Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon
   after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of
   Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to
   assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a
   diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed
   that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon
   others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded
   in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to
   complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had
   fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous
   prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their
   career from province to province, he had himself opened a
   passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial
   dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed
   in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.
   Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented
   from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept
   in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so
   that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the
   conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the
   Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter
   in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and
   captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a
   conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns
   concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders
   in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,
   under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate
   of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,
   Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power
   of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed
   over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were
   overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after
   another was routed before they learned the defeat of their
   companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and
   reputation, was not more successful, having been completely
   beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,
   in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town
   of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the
   cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles
   next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.
   The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should
   renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus
   as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with
   Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to
   mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was
   increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,
   near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which
   the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.
   … The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner
   in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe
   with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of
   his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.
   France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the
   Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned
   to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the
   declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and
   resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his
   envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an
   occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to
   succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his
   Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their
   religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.
   … The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he
   had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to
   his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views
   increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice
   for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel
   his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession
   of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No
   enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

      _A. Crichton,
      Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Poland,
      pages 219-221._

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
   Charles XII. in Russia.
   His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
   His refuge among the Turks.
   His fruitless intrigues.
   His return to Sweden.
   His death.

   "From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,
   1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to
   revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,
   who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of
   20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],
   strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the
   czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at
   Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,
   he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that
   ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on
   the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the
   country; Charles, after having endured great privations,
   turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by
   Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the
   conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.
   In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could
   throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but
   he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as
   a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered
   his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of
   his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was
   the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they
   had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care
   it was entrusted, had been forced into three general
   engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently
   distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was
   forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into
   the hands of the enemy.
{2827}
   Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign
   even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at
   once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid
   siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the
   Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal
   magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance
   obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel
   whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to
   his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous
   army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,
   Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,
   while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The
   desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but
   the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of
   rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery
   made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had
   been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in
   vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a
   dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish
   army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were
   left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about
   12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on
   the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the
   river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,
   escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning
   all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of
   Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important
   consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one
   fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;
   the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was
   completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were
   taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than
   death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the
   wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and
   drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and
   Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the
   victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a
   great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the
   German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy
   would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed
   a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he
   instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and
   flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head
   of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed
   on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these
   intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,
   informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured
   the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most
   vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced
   (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled
   all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of
   Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,
   believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for
   delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the
   czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached
   the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian
   capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince
   Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by
   the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for
   them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman
   whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all
   the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to
   the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A
   treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on
   terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up
   Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the
   circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians
   retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only
   to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of
   intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the
   appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little
   inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,
   warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove
   him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to
   linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from
   the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a
   resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,
   with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the
   Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and
   conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the
   divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain
   in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have
   restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General
   Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had
   been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the
   Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the
   duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by
   burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an
   outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon
   after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his
   whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his
   conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign
   appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over
   the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his
   rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish
   senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace
   with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of
   returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the
   journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen
   days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached
   Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the
   opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with
   enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the
   united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the
   Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,
   threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,
   in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed
   bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having
   previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All
   Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he
   could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the
   inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that
   he had invaded Norway.
{2828}
   His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by
   the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,
   taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the
   other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles
   should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …
   While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded
   Norway a second time, and invested the castle of
   Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged
   in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was
   dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance
   [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief
   for the loss

      _W. C. Taylor,
      Student's Manual of Modern History,
      chapter 7, section 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Schuyler,
      Peter the Great,
      chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2)._

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 18._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.
   Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
   Constitutional changes.
   Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
   Swedish cessions of Territory.

   "An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],
   and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared
   an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a
   council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were
   invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was
   reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was
   restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.
   … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden
   and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden
   were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in
   consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By
   another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support
   Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy
   of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice
   was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be
   arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to
   be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain
   the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus
   a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the
   preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great
   discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in
   Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia
   under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal
   articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,
   Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract
   between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm
   and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,
   engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million
   rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace
   between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.
   … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of
   Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all
   that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars
   and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only
   territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the
   greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of
   which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and
   Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At
   length, through the mediation of France, conferences were
   opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,
   September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that
   [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a
   part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at
   the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia
   to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden
   $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that
   he had purchased that province."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. C. Schlosser,
      History of the 18th Century,
      period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
   Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
   husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
   Wars with Russia and Prussia.
   Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
   The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
   A constitutional Revolution.
   Assassination of Gustavus III.

   Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the
   crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who
   became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign
   witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a
   part of that province to Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

   On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
   and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
   "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
   was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
   of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
   Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
   on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
   Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
   which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
   XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
   the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
   Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
   Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
   he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
   invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
   accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
   Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
   concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
   example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
   the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
   harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
   internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
   the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
   the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
   monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
   shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
   render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
   orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
   peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
   was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
   authority.
{2829}
   It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
   tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
   All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
   had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
   The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
   judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
   passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
   sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
   than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
   regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
   This interference was resented by some of the members,
   belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
   termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
   who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
   whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
   Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
   to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
   and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
   therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
   the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
   Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
   money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
   cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
   to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
   constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
   enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
   of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
   already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
   ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
   matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
   much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
   On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
   revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
   odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
   by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
   followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
   same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
   in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
   designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
   restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
   they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
   III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
   Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
   Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
   nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
   succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
   age of three years.

      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
      book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
   Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
   Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.
   Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
   Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.
   Accession of Gustavus Ill.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.
   Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.
   Peace with France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
   The Northern Maritime League.
   English bombardment of Copenhagen
   and summary extortion of peace.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
   Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
   In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
   Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.
   Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
   the Danish Fleet by the English.
   War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,
   and conquest of Finland.
   Deposition of the Swedish king.

   On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,
   meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the
   terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

   "There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
   England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
   be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
   diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
   us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
   with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
   to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
   efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
   provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
   made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
   England did not before the 1st of November make terms
   satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
   two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
   to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
   their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
   May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
   Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
   from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
   Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
   secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
   with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
   refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
   no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
   consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
   Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
   of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
   were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
   occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
   account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
   himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
   Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
   Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
   at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
   that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
   be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
   the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
   was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
   went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
   frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
   transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
{2830}
   Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
   military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
   month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
   before the final orders were given, ministers had such
   information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
   left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
   fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
   Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
   was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
   the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
   Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
   more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
   Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
   of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
   doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
   however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
   British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
   it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
   September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
   surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
   that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
   by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
   Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
   Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
   the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
   One of the most painful features of the case is the
   confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
   quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
   merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
   These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
   we had carried off."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early
   in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her
   mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general
   peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the
   sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret
   articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its
   failure was made certain by the action of England in taking
   possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of
   November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was
   accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.
   "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and
   defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia
   to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his
   engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on
   which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an
   overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which
   by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 455-456
      (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work)._

   In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to
   Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,
   and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her
   vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and
   blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000
   men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all
   advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found
   the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,
   proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for
   defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found
   to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;
   Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off
   in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which
   had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,
   the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides
   Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;
   they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the
   King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …
   As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects
   gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into
   the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor
   King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was
   setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment
   for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon
   made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,
   and with France in the following January. Pomerania was
   restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great
   sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the
   Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against
   all communications with England."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 1._

   "The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
   complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
   east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
   was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
   after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
   conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
   'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
   and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
   Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
   sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
   everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
   countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
   crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
   nation which were called into being by the will of the
   conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
   the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
   part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
   exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
   common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
   Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
   there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
   constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
   position of that State is best described in his own words.
   Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
   who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
   tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
   was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
   [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
   was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
   nation of his own founding.
{2831}
   The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
   the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
   Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
   All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
   of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
   the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
   The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
   of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
   held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
   the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
   Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
   and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
   been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
   boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
   near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Finland
      (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Monteith, editor,
      Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
      by a Russian Officer (with appended documents)._

      _C. Joyneville,
      Life and Times of Alexander I.,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
   Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
   Accession of Charles XIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
   Granting of the Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
   Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince
   and successor to the throne.

   The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the
   eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown
   Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the
   government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the
   nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th
   of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell
   from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again
   without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated
   the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the
   succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of
   Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,
   had some right to expect his support. The son of the late
   unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named
   like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke
   of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had
   partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical
   objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,
   and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be
   forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was
   concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of
   the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous
   crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.
   Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of
   reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of
   Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to
   subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to
   choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to
   submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards
   her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this
   embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who
   proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown
   of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high
   noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,
   Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married
   to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a
   wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom
   he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family
   of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the
   north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and
   administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,
   Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular
   manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it
   was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange
   the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The
   Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy
   which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they
   thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world
   seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,
   whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the
   Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name
   of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the
   wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been
   heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though
   certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was
   so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the
   Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to
   him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,
   had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of
   any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for
   the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte
   submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of
   Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the
   empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of
   officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but
   without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he
   was compelled to do, although their character was in most
   instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed
   a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the
   most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by
   necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,
   this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,
   not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country
   rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being
   personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of
   his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by
   Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of
   positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while
   such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,
   the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,
   imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their
   throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable
   tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at
   variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,
   he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of
   the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,
   that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that
   the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,
   however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a
   condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his
   hand.
{2832}
   It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could
   not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time
   exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his
   service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been
   favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove
   distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect
   of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand
   intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The
   Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,
   notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French
   envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,
   for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King
   of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold
   assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,
   being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to
   his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of
   his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden
   by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Life of Napoleon,
      volume 2, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 4, chapter 7._

      _Lady Bloomfield,
      Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,
      volume 1, pages 17-34._

      _W. G. Meredith,
      Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
   Alliance with Russia against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
   Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
   Participation in the War of Liberation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Peace of Kiel.
   Cession of Norway to Sweden and
   of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

   "The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte
   [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an
   armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,
   January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to
   Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and
   Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.
   Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had
   remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.
   in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish
   Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the
   present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her
   connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian
   Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an
   attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of
   Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of
   Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed
   King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain
   and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather
   than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to
   decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,
   assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.
   also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th
   1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had
   been taken by the English, were restored."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
   The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
   Fall of Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
      and (MARCH-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
   The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

   "When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from
   Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused
   them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes
   appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of
   Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been
   guaranteed complete national independence that she consented
   to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement
   was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th
   of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway
   begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv),
   which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and
   hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th
   of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the
   6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of
   the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,
   a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act
   of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must
   reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a
   matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,
   the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),
   which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of
   two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other
   Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do
   no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his
   ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above
   spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two
   ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in
   attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or
   Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government
   resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by
   the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The
   officials, who form what we should call the Government (as
   distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),
   together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of
   the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If
   removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary
   until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,
   Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the
   number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not
   more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the
   franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign
   affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.
   There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and
   he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal
   administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,
   called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of
   these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with
   its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about
   50,000) form each a separate Amt."

      _C. F. Keary,
      Norway and the Norwegians,
      chapter 13._

      See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.
   Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

      See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

{2833}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
   Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.
   Accession of Christian VIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.
   Accession of Oscar I.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.
   Accession of Frederick VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
   The Schleswig-Holstein question.
   First war with Prussia.

   "The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of
   modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is
   exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more
   northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In
   the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by
   Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the
   Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should
   be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to
   Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex
   history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard
   of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of
   the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the
   nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of
   Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a
   confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be
   united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was
   succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew
   Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the
   Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed
   in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward
   united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even
   this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the
   Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of
   the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if
   stress were laid on the various changes in the relations
   between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the
   unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding
   centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in
   1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before
   were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the
   King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the
   time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he
   governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of
   succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected
   amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the
   commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.
   took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally
   to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a
   position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,
   the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and
   Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the
   nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh
   connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the
   Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to
   influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined
   to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was
   maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son
   Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin
   Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,
   afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no
   children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the
   crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the
   present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old
   undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which
   descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With
   this prospect before them it became very desirable for the
   Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the
   Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the
   King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and
   Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a
   declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of
   succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was
   more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his
   endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of
   Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the
   Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and
   the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of
   enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian
   VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last
   of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical
   moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the
   heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by
   these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary
   movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany
   across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of
   untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from
   Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing
   the former under its own constitution to form part of the
   German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the
   German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he
   offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by
   formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing
   to Prussia the office of mediation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

   War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
   revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
   these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
   ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
   pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
   which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
   France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
   settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
   in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
   Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
   succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
   practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
   1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
   Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
   was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
   the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
   the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
   was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
   reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
   Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
   Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
   reserved.
{2834}
   The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
   Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
   the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
   was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
   laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
   the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
   and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
   of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
   Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
   given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
   were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
   made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
   … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
   constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
   1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
   1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
   the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
   incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
   German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
   resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
   of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
   and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
   contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
   constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
   heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
   while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
   Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
   affairs of the entire Kingdom."

      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Lord John Russell,
      chapter 30 (volume 2)._

   In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important
   battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were
   superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use
   of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.
   "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in
   the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of
   the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an
   armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April
   following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded
   Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the
   Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,
   retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and
   commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the
   invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody
   combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to
   evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced
   the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,
   in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a
   Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of
   340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the
   6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.
   "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96
   officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole
   siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was
   immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly
   the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at
   Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and
   which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described
   above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the
   insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and
   were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from
   Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and
   Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the
   25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody
   conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000
   men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious
   slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of
   Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were
   killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that
   of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly
   severe."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 53._

   From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But
   in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of
   London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian
   of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the
   Schleswig-Holstein question.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. A. Gosch,
      Denmark and Germany since 1815,
      chapters 3-9._

      _A Forgotten War
      (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
      Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 "). _

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
   The Danish constitution.
   Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

   Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The
   principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king
   of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the
   monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the
   constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,
   but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly
   (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and
   renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the
   Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or
   encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is
   sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.
   The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is
   the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a
   seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)
   meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has
   lasted for two months at least. It consists of two
   Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower
   Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66
   members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven
   chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of
   Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral
   districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or
   rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of
   them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional
   or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one
   moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the
   franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected
   from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every
   rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised
   members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for
   three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there
   are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House
   is elected by manhood suffrage.
{2835}
   Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no
   stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright
   of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a
   year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does
   not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private
   persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers
   of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal
   footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …
   At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not
   working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have
   gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,
   or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the
   Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against
   an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The
   dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn
   so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public
   interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has
   not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents
   chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the
   mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I
   said in the beginning that I would tell you how the
   constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have
   only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old
   Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed
   from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was
   re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a
   consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct
   its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position
   should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its
   anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country
   had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of
   laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in
   administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every
   successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a
   proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the
   country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found
   entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions
   of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September
   23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures
   for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the
   monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the
   country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,
   the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration
   and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for
   1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in
   the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant
   dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their
   laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,
   but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to
   incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of
   Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could
   understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was
   brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that
   it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own
   home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing
   (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the
   royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,
   quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their
   case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon
   Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give
   Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly
   meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only
   partially complied with, and from the first the charter met
   with but scanty popularity."

      _E. Magnusson,
      Denmark and Iceland
      (National Life and Thought, chapter 12)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.
   In the alliance against Russia.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.
   Accession of Charles XV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.
   Accession of Christian IX.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
   Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
   Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.
   Accession of Oscar II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.
   Population.

   By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of
   Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway
   2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census
   taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

      _Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._

   ----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------

SCANZIA, Island of.

   The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some
   ancient writers.

      See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

SCHAH,
SHAH.

      See BEY.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

      See CAUCASUS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

SCHELLENBERG, or
HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.
   Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

SCHEPENS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHILL'S RISING.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SCHISM, The Great.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;
      also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

      See ILLYRIANS.

SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.

SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SCHŒNE, The.

   An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in
   the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no
   standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

      See PARASANG.

{2836}

SCHOFIELD, General J. M.
   Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
      and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

   The Atlanta Campaign.

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

   Campaign against Hood.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

   The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern
   Roman Empire.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 5, chapter 20._

SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOLMEN.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

   "Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished
   foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to
   second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came
   from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men
   into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever
   he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his
   liberality; and learned men who, after following him into
   Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became
   strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He
   was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual
   state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the
   continent; letters and schools prospered there more than
   anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that
   of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York
   possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan
   antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which
   it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge
   of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for
   from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in
   which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which
   they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In
   780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of
   his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission
   to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope
   and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he
   came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at
   once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some
   hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the
   permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The
   permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in
   the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,
   those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of
   St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,
   Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual
   prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to
   796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,
   Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of
   the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,
   and at which were regularly present all those who were with
   the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the
   course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to
   believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself
   generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in
   the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather
   than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that
   movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and
   satisfied, was its chief merit."

      _F. Guizot,
      History of Civilization,
      lecture 22 (volume 3)._

      See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

      ALSO IN:
      _A. F. West,
      Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools._

SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION.

SCHÖNBRUNN,
   Treaty of (1806).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

   Treaty of (1809).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

   The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
   Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

      _J. L. Motley,
      Rise of the Dutch Republic,
      introduction, section 6._

   "In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes
   the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating
   parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,
   and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers
   or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

      _Van Leeuwen,
      Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,
      quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,
      volume 1, page 101, foot-note,
      and volume 2, page 212._

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
   Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCHWEIDNITZ:
   Captured and recaptured.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

SCINDE,
SINDH.

   "Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.
   It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of
   water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is
   part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and
   west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;
   the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …
   Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder
   Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud
   of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

   "In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
   the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
   Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
   The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
   origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
   'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
   Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
   province. … In their relations with the British government the
   Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
   interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
   to time.
{2837}
   In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
   however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
   the British government, more intimate connection with the
   Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
   for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
   treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
   British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
   friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
   contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
   was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
   Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
   of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
   dependence on the British government. New treaties became
   necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
   negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
   and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
   Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
   the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
   2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
   gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
   result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

      _D. Ross,
      The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,
      pages 1-6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Mohan Lal,
      Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
      chapter 14 (volume 2)._

      See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

SCIO.

   See CHIOS.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,
   Destruction of Carthage by.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

SCIR-GEREFA.

   See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

   "The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the
   eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara
   it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of
   precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a
   spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the
   road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some
   difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath
   until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road
   throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by
   which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes
   over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the
   traveller equal or greater difficulties."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      History of Herodotus,
      book 8, section 71, foot-note._

SCLAVENES.
SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

      See SLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

      See ILLYRIANS.

SCONE, Kingdom of.

      See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCORDISCANS, The.

   The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian
   people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the
   south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114
   they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two
   years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the
   Danube.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2)._

SCOT AND LOT.

   "Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable
   proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or
   national purposes."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3)._

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

   "If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch
   Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main
   the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,
   the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at
   Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the
   hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the
   Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower
   Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this
   forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the
   Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,
   with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to
   the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the
   vernacular of the inhabitants."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 2, page 453._

SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

   In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,
   formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were
   confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had
   submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during
   the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of
   treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

   These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
   Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
   English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
   of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
   became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
   given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
   The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
   either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
   prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
   the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
   Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
   the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
   employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
   intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
   bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
   restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
   their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
   evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
   north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
   the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
   organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
   adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
   in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
   the great movement began which transported so large a portion
   of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
   their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
   America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
   followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
   left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
   where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
   Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
   Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
   relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
{2838}
   In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
   estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
   Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
   1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
   expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
   province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
   continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
   was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
   Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
   crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
   counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
   continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
   Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
   and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
   Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
   fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
   history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
   names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
   distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
   some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
   mention of their people —names which the world will not
   willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
   world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
   orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
   poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
   Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
   Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
   Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
   McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
   Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
   Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
   seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
   Johnson."

      _W. W. Henry,
      The Scotch Irish of the South,
      (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889)._

   "Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier
   for their leadership in our history; nor have we been
   altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the
   Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the
   importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,
   the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.
   These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the
   west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more
   than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the
   descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the
   kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who
   were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the
   vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and
   rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and
   the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the
   mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this
   land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and
   flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a
   shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the
   seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through
   this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with
   the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who
   have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same
   men who, before any others, declared for American
   independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in
   dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western
   portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an
   entirely different stock from that which had long existed in
   the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,
   except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,
   the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from
   their great breeding ground and nursery in western
   Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and
   hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled
   regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of
   the white advance. They were the first and last set of
   immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the
   wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to
   be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the
   Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret
   their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of
   their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic
   and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapter 23. _

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

SCOTIA, The name.

      See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

   ----------SCOTLAND: Start--------

SCOTLAND:
   The name.

   "The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
   Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
   forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
   the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
   the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
   whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
   Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
   is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
   first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
   also appears to have borne from an early period another
   appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
   Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
   however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
   Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
   mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
   people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
   the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
   not till the tenth century that any part of the present
   country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
{2839}
   From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
   of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
   Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
   that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
   north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

   1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and
   Ireland alone;

   2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
   superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
   and;

   3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
   limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
   Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 1, introduction._

SCOTLAND:
   The Picts and Scots.

   "Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day
   painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the
   time, however, of British independence under Carausius and
   Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion
   had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'
   Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the
   Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,
   and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first
   time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the
   year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They
   came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of
   painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the
   painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,
   and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,
   untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)
   meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti
   probably owned these names, the former of which is to be
   traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given
   the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they
   crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a
   national name, which described them as painted or tattooed
   men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally
   to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all
   the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred
   Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used
   to be known to the Kymry."

      _J. Rhys,
      Celtic Britain,
      chapter 7_.

   A different view of the origin and signification of these
   names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

      _E. Guest,
      Origines Celticae,
      volume 2, part 1, chapter 1._

   Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:
   "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from
   Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.
   Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
   occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,
   or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under
   the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case
   favours the former belief, but the weight of philological
   evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 2, section 1, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 5._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.
   Roman conquests under Agricola.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.
   Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.
   The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTLAND: 6th Century.
   The Mission of St. Columba.

      See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
   Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

SCOTLAND: 7th Century.
   The Four Kingdoms.

   "Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
   of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
   part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
   subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
   limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
   find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
   conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
   the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
   in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
   kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
   and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
   the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
   from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
   Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
   Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
   by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
   Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
   century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
   kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
   remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
   formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
   Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
   on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
   two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
   west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
   extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
   the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
   from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
   now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
   east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
   by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
   Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
   that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
   forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
   Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
   the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
   four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
   from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
   population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
   these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
   or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
   Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
   not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
   thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
   Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
   was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
   little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
   disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
   whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
   have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
   while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
   along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
   Angles."
{2840}
   In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
   Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
   led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
   defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
   the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
   The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
   that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
   to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
   territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
   Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
   regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
   forty-six years.'"

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.
   The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

   "The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the
   victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed
   Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada
   from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation
   of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,
   while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in
   the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their
   bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of
   Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish
   name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their
   royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of
   Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in
   right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth
   and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment
   we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the
   title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its
   chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and
   'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for
   Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

      _J. R. Green,
      The Conquest of England,
      chapter 4._

   It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was
   known, there was a period during which the realm established
   by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying
   the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from
   the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that
   the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration
   of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that
   'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
   first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at
   Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the
   coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is
   an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16
   inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin
   identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at
   Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time
   near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be
   called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
   Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the
   kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer
   called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: 9th Century.
   The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.
   The forming of' the modern kingdom
   and its relations to England.

   "The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward
   the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an
   external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a
   fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the
   evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their
   supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,
   because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on
   the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission
   of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it
   evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement
   [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed
   the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the
   feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better
   than any other to express the real state of the case. The
   transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply
   an application, on an international scale, of the general
   principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he
   sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he
   entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas
   strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the
   Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a
   feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process
   of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing
   their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or
   Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign
   princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading
   in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended
   themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in
   the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every
   continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual
   fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original
   Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by
   a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the
   intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of
   his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.
   The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions
   had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation
   of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the
   ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the
   Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal
   change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …
   But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events
   which have often been confounded with the Commendation of
   Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case
   has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people
   understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England
   and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the
   boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the
   tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names
   of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.
   At the time of the Commendation the country which is now
   called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct
   sovereignties.
{2841}
   North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an
   independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the
   Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes
   is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.
   South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the
   Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern
   Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,
   which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an
   independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of
   modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was
   purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this
   day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had
   its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year
   924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,
   subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of
   Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In
   the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde
   and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the
   relation was something new on the part of Scotland and
   Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part
   of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which
   had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The
   transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian
   into their relations to one another and to the English Crown
   were quite distinct from each other. They were as
   follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the
   Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by
   Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of
   Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord
   Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was
   then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman
   Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory
   was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was
   retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very
   gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The
   distinction between the two states seems to have been quite
   forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the
   grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or
   under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not
   perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there
   can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral
   part of England, could be granted only as any other part of
   England could be granted, namely to be held as part of
   England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …
   But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part
   of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on
   whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the
   position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That
   the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary
   circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for
   from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from
   all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,
   when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be
   merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and
   singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked
   for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely
   English or Danish province would become the historical
   Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got
   confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh
   century, became English in manners and language; they were not
   without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not
   without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach
   more and more value to the English part of their dominions,
   and they laboured to spread its language and manners over
   their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient
   title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of
   English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus
   formed, politically distinct from England, and which political
   circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a
   state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic
   background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in
   laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many
   respects, than England itself remained after the Norman
   Conquest."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of the Norman Conquest of England,
      chapter 3, section. 4._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.
   The kingdom acquires its final name.

   "The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a
   great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the
   dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.
   Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their
   influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king
   who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath
   the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.
   This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his
   predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With
   Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of
   the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      book 1, chapter 8._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.
   The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

   Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
   little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
   He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
   through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
   holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
   year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
   Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
   with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
   of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
   stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
   place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
   Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
   all events it was near if not actually within the territory
   ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
   designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
   Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
   Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
   inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
   authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
   grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
   … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
   not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
   similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
   exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
   nearest to his time.
{2842}
   It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
   separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
   positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
   to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
   ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
   benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
   of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
   services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
   St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
   to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
   record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
   Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
   he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
   only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
   noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
   of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
   history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
   having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
   except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
   With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
   succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
   law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
   From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
   holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
   one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
   turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
   crown."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
   Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
   Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
   Reign of Malcolm III.

   "The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon
   their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of
   the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,
   retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in
   civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the
   Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,
   they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who
   were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed
   and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,
   and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who
   was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of
   his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This
   prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named
   Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness
   by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),
   who remembered the assistance which he had received from
   Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess
   Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When
   Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon
   royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the
   Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English
   throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient
   strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the
   northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,
   that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every
   Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the
   number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to
   improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the
   Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,
   came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King
   Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his
   service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of
   land, to be held for military services; and most of the
   Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal
   System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and
   went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general
   law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.
   Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining
   re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began
   greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided
   almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of
   Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower
   which served him for a palace. But as he found his power
   increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took
   possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which
   had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great
   strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty
   rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his
   residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief
   city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise
   prince, though without education. He often made war upon King
   William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and
   successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called
   William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes
   beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;
   and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but
   threatened also to possess himself of the great English
   province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."
   Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),
   during one of his invasions of English territory.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
      abridged by E. Ginn,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
   Successors of Malcolm III.
   The reign of David I.
   His civilizing work and influence.

   "Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
   between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
   with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
   Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
   short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
   mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
   wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
   daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
   Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
   period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
   with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
   kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
   a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
   soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
   an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
   dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
   dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
   by David I.
{2843}
   The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
   time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
   the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
   suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
   Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
   north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
   under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
   Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
   the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
   in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
   the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
   of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
   by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
   encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
   Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
   they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
   familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
   royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
   three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
   contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
   improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
   to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
   living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
   seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
   his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
   fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
   people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
   mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
   sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
   perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
   that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
   migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
   into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
   enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
   own estates, and not to waste the property of their
   neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
   began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
   wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
   up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
   of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
   fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
   strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
   rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
   neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
   Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
   origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
   driven to take refuge in England."

      _E. W. Robertson,
      Scotland under her Early Kings,
      volume 1, chapters 6-8._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.
   Accession of Malcolm IV.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.
   Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
   Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
   English king, and his release from it.

   In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion
   against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and
   sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his
   dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,
   king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the
   promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France
   until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own
   presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was
   pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an
   army in the midland counties, and the young prince was
   preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry
   crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman
   bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On
   the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,
   was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended
   the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into
   Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.
   The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In
   less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."
   The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in
   Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice
   of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last
   consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to
   do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals
   guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English
   garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,
   and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly
   ratified at York."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, chapter 31._

   This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is
   often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years
   afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had
   succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.
   "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on
   his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],
   William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck
   to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from
   William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English
   estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in
   return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and
   Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the
   homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.
   Accession of Alexander II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.
   Accession of Alexander III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
   The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

   "The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
   territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
   and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
   the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
   putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
   between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
   long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
   active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
   with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
   called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
   generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
   when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
   mainland. …
{2844}
   Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
   interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
   for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
   near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
   revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
   Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
   of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
   magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
   was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
   vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
   accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
   vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
   with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
   'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
   sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
   Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
   and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
   it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
   peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
   fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
   ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
   drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
   on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
   over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
   surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
   gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
   voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
   Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
   opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
   reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
   struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
   night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
   Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
   fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
   islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
   where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
   of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
   success."

      _W. Burns,
      The Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

   "In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small
   figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and
   feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.
   But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did
   land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather
   beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in
   either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was
   dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and
   altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was
   so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say
   merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of
   his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including
   Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to
   him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the
   village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone
   cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,
   one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to
   a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King
   Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these
   neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an
   aggressive, high kind of humour."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Early Kings of Norway,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
      and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.
   Acquisition of the Western Islands.

   Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,
   the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King
   of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving
   Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,
   the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a
   thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
   Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
   who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
   Death of the Maid of Norway.
   Reign of John Balliol.
   English conquest by Edward I.
   Exploits of Wallace.

   Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
   granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
   daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
   after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
   history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
   to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
   promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
   crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
   child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
   claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
   into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
   thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
   could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
   the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
   to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
   Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
   eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
   his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
   Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
   of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
   he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
   a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
   was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
   which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
   whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
   mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
   the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
   claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
   finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
   once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
   Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
   from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
   presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
   service in his foreign wars which were resented and
   disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
   hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
   denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
   forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
   absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
   secret alliance with the king of France.
{2845}
   In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
   by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
   Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
   Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
   Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
   "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
   prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
   declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
   Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
   earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
   to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
   dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
   head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
   submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
   the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
   saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
   country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
   English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
   Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
   nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
   enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
   of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
   for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
   At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
   army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
   in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
   following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
   Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
   narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
   maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
   a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
   refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
   sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
   on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
   time.

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 4, section 3._

      ALSO:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 15 and 18-22._

      _C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 2, chapters 12-13._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.
   The rising under Robert Bruce.

   After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of
   England "set to work to complete the union of the two
   kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a
   Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was
   to be represented in the English parliament by ten
   deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the
   commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the
   south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,
   and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …
   But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that
   they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when
   Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they
   rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,
   Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and
   the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined
   Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the
   Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours
   from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William
   Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of
   Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand
   by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not
   to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became
   known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from
   London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he
   had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red
   Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to
   the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly
   known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder
   and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the
   law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to
   the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on
   the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession
   was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On
   March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an
   imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such
   short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,
   Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,
   as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the
   right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on
   the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to
   put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part
   in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and
   death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce
   was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The
   Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,
   in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's
   sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,
   his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles
   were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …
   Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All
   classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were
   invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward
   Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their
   spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It
   was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his
   vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.
   His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,
   for, though the English still remained in possession of the
   strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the
   rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far
   as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

      _M. MacArthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapters 8-9._

      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      volume 2, chapters 21-22._

{2846}

SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314.
   The Battle of Bannockburn.

   "It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and
   chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to
   1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.
   We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts
   for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet
   embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore
   doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …
   The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was
   the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of
   comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady
   and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour
   never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep
   up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and
   pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong
   places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We
   hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,
   Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the
   year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting
   into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised
   his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce
   with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,
   countenance still more important was given to the new order of
   things at home. The clergy in council set forth their
   adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was
   an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that
   the Church would do its best to protect him from all
   ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A
   crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to
   a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,
   Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward
   Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.
   Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if
   not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
   following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this
   fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was
   prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of
   Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king
   should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically
   the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the
   English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the
   chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling
   Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the
   relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and
   resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts
   were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to
   strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two
   armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was
   said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for
   the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of
   the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to
   the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of
   Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that
   the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,
   100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the
   mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in
   number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a
   position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the
   Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by
   honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it
   impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak
   on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful
   defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted
   field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in
   their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the
   retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the
   history of her great wars before and since, never did England
   suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison
   with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,
   Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter
   helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no
   rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty
   host could keep together, and the very chaos among the
   multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of
   the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply
   to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them
   is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face
   the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the
   hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards
   England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the
   stipulation."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 23._

   "The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000
   men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

      _W. Burns,
      Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 23 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
   After Bannockburn.
   The consequences of the battle in different views.

   "A very general impression exists, especially among
   Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the
   attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No
   doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render
   the final result all but certain. But it required many others,
   though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction
   described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to
   the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen
   long years till the treaty of Northampton."

      _W. Burns,
      The Scottish War of Independence,
      chapter 24 (volume 2)._

   "No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
   any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
   This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
   called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
   of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
   artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
   These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
   commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
   estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
   the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
   found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
   fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
   The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
   retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
   effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
   extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
   disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
   Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
   facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
   from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
   natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
   roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
   came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
   England for nineteen years. The country during these long
   minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
   exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
{2847}
   The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three
   centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
   heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
   beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
   destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
   partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
   the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
   its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
   moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
   outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
   houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
   grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
   they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
   night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
   their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
   might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
   others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
   country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
   plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
   violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
   independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
   England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
   far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
   power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
   the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
   failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
   and the progress of the nation."

      _W. Denton,
      England in the Fifteenth Century,
      pages 68-78._

   On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end
   for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of
   accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have
   the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.
   Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish
   history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this
   is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out
   into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we
   have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must
   have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of
   England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the
   present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of
   all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the
   memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570
   years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to
   visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the
   political and social questions which depended on it. For good
   or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the
   loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong
   national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of
   intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,
   the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and
   from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding
   its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,
   can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the
   few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a
   noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,
   and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying
   down the Carse of Stirling?"

      _The Duke of Argyll,
      Scotland as it was and as it is,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
   The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

   "As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to
   perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the
   feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were
   supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the
   other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses
   and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that
   nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were
   first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce
   [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.
   they are ranked among the constituent members of that
   assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.
   1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,
   and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption
   was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little
   valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected
   during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first
   obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.
   A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great
   barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of
   boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two
   houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord
   chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of
   parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning
   of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The
   ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted
   implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in
   any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us
   to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a
   committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It
   was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which
   were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any
   business introduced into parliament but what had passed
   through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed
   the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius
   of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery
   of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only
   directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a
   negative before debate. That committee was chosen and
   constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege
   entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that
   our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of
   articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the
   parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each
   estate."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
   The Peace of Northampton.

   In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
   of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
   several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
   vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
   stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
   the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
{2848}
   He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
   appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
   points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
   acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
   sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
   "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
   lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
   statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
   claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
   the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
   public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
   claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
   the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
   concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
   at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
   was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
   Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
   though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
   settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
   of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
   stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
   Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
   England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
   towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
   Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
   consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
   be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
   coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
   another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
   most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
   article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
   English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
   in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
   the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
   execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
   who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
   introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
   English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
   stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
   deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
   men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
   1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 12 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 18._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.
   Accession of David II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
   The Disinherited Barons.
   Balliol's invasion.
   Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

   Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
   enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
   which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
   nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
   a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
   the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
   1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
   determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
   made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
   Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
   Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
   undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
   English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
   recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
   which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
   coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
   westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
   the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
   Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
   Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
   Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
   the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
   conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
   upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
   military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
   Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
   Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
   the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
   the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
   of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
   threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
   Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
   and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
   whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
   river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
   the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
   enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
   Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
   crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
   four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
   which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
   took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
   surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
   submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
   the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
   and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
   been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
   came to make their submission. Young King David and his
   affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
   Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
   1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
   Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
   could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
   treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
   espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
   represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
   and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
   seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
   party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
   admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
   the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
   non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
   Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
   fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
   with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
   instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
   than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
{2849}
   Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
   his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
   Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
   by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
   Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
   entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
   retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
   any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
   life across the English border." In the following year,
   however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
   Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
   destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
   relief.

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III.,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapter 25._

      See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
   The long-continued wars with Edward III.

   "Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles
   and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,
   after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,
   by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the
   better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of
   things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were
   fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,
   and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally
   successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting
   off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and
   destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long
   and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually
   regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well
   imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were
   waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,
   many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the
   state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was
   no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of
   humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People
   were found starved to death in the woods with their families,
   while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation
   that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and
   approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …
   Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,
   their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the
   continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King
   as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole
   power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the
   complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.
   But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward
   became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid
   claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an
   embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and
   they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover
   their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was
   taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other
   important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward
   Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good
   his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding
   the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the
   resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided
   for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,
   Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a
   youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom
   and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles
   of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;
   they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,
   and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.
   Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of
   besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and
   urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and
   profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of
   Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering
   England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards
   Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;
   the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were
   absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save
   priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.
   The lords of the northern counties of England, together with
   the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They
   defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body
   by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The
   King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was
   twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The
   left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after
   the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It
   was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of
   March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very
   many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph
   through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a
   close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,
   near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great
   victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed
   by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time
   possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as
   the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner
   compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider
   the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more
   fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when
   he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into
   East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that
   the period was long marked by the name of the Burned
   Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But
   the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could
   be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while
   they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward
   was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining
   much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to
   have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into
   terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus
   David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,
   after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter
   years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He
   died in 1370."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
      abridged by E. Ginn,
      chapters 14-15._

{2850}

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1._

      _W. Longman,
      Life and Times of Edward III.,
      volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.
   Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

      See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.
   The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart
   or Stuart Dynasty.

   On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.
   D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert
   the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,
   daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by
   act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"
   life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal
   dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but
   it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal
   office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the
   first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the
   Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through
   the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of
   Scotland—the office of Steward."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 26 (volume 3)._

   The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as
   follows:

   Robert II.,
   Robert III.,
   James I.,
   James II.,
   James III.,
   James IV.,
   James V.,
   Mary,
   James VI.

   The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,
   was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of
   Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the
   English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King
   James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James
   I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His
   successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before
   the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,
   Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The
   Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,
   through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

      _M. Noble,
      Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.
   The Battle of Otterburn.

      See OTTERBURN.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.
   Accession of Robert III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
   Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
   The captivity of James I.

   From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and
   Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the
   termination of it, that they might be let loose on the
   northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It
   was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not
   wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had
   prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old
   way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the
   Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for
   Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a
   necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no
   longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began
   his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a
   large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened
   Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish
   king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.
   Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one
   of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received
   an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent
   of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in
   consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated
   Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under
   Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were
   returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by
   Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,
   and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and
   lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among
   the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by
   Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they
   joined him with a considerable force when he raised his
   standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious
   Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.
   1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important
   captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish
   throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while
   on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular
   king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained
   at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly
   courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He
   married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to
   return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English
   training to introduce in Scotland a better system of
   government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which
   he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless
   lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who
   troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,
   on the 20th of February, 1436.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 26-27._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapters 16-18._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
   Battle of Harlaw.
   Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

      See HARLAW.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
   Reign of James II.
   Feuds in the kingdom.
   The Douglases.

   James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
   Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
   William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
   fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
   Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
   of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
   other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
   potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
   spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
   Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
   Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
   Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
   related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
   of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
   a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
   the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
   been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
   Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
   upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
   duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
   contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
   off to Stirling Castle.
{2851}
   He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
   power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
   destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
   sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
   The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
   would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
   shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
   regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
   was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
   from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
   protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
   Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
   notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
   and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
   Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
   Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
   years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
   with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
   there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
   laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
   time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
   great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
   Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
   threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
   Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
   of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
   Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
   directed, not against England, but against the successes of
   the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
   fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
   1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
   of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
   been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
   'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
   curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
   curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
   too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
   wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
   thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
   James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
   Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

      _M. G. J. Kinloch,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 16._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.
   Accession of James Ill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
   Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

   James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's
   death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the
   rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He
   had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of
   chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was
   attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture
   and music; and in studying these used the instructions of
   Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,
   and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic
   minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the
   conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the
   royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.
   Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit
   might be in their own several professions, could not be
   fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste
   for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on
   him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,
   with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society
   of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to
   lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom
   the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public
   eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of
   Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of
   the king were presently excited by the popularity of his
   brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,
   accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed
   in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,
   Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his
   influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and
   thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant
   of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by
   offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the
   kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester
   (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to
   enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and
   advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the
   invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply
   exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect
   assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the
   sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on
   Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished
   except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to
   the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his
   English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke
   lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than
   a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The
   doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people
   and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the
   discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily
   defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between
   Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell
   from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of
   a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The
   consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the
   chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The
   persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's
   body ever found."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 20 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 3, chapters 18 and 22._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.
   Accession of James IV.

{2852}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
   The marriage which brought the crown of England
   to the Stuarts.

   "On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between
   King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England
   [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was
   celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and
   governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a
   marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and
   England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest
   of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,
   indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that
   it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,
   it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of
   England."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 30 (volume 3)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
   The Highlands brought to order.
   Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

   "The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,
   daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of
   tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of
   justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored
   confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial
   activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.
   Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their
   territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in
   the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the
   Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the
   Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,
   which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of
   Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,
   after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an
   independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the
   chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and
   were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

      _J. M. Ross,
      Scottish History and Literature,
      chapter 5, page 177._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
   The Battle of Flodden.

   In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy
   League against France, was engaged in the latter country,
   besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,
   king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and
   the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced
   James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes
   of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from
   Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,
   had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found
   refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters
   of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of
   his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had
   been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,
   and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his
   captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an
   answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,
   and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had
   been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed
   the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed
   forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the
   Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted
   on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river
   Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front
   rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,
   after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved
   suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon
   marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its
   junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The
   Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the
   English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their
   own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the
   Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined
   against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders
   were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the
   command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful
   Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The
   slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of
   the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      volume 2, pages 370-372._

   "There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish
   earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty
   chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common
   men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been
   numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the
   nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior
   rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long
   defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert
   their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by
   shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
   Accession of James V.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
   The disaster at Solway-frith.

   James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
   England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
   to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
   himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
   between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
   trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
   English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
   of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
   of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
   urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
   frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
   young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
   Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
   came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
   avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
   having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
   alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
   of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
   vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
   him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
   Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
   in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
   Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
   more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
   and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
   informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
   the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
   as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
   30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
   retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
   with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
   invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
   war into England.
{2853}
   He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
   general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
   given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
   attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
   mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
   vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
   to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
   to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
   [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
   distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
   he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
   and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
   "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
   was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
   not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
   Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
   flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
   rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
   prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
   this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
   overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
   While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
   daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
   subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
   Scots."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 33._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 33._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
   Accession of Queen Mary.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
   The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

   Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England
   began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the
   infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,
   was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which
   the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,
   Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a
   military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost
   destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent
   conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed
   at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal
   Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the
   Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The
   Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the
   greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the
   unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being
   informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer
   every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious
   terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon
   Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate
   without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and
   beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of
   the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the
   Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they
   immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.
   They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the
   work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it
   by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from
   the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the
   following day; and for three successive days they returned
   with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had
   completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then
   proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and
   sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the
   history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,
   the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no
   building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The
   death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal
   of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring
   kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.
   Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with
   Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.
   lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.
   … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now
   Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the
   minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at
   the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail
   co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At
   his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great
   force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with
   various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the
   English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made
   memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,
   Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive
   engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after
   known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,
   the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant
   from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and
   succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the
   royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of
   cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful
   slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,
   both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe
   defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their
   young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the
   English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the
   coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,
   then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and
   sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme
   of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the
   Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,
   and expelled the English from most of the places they held in
   the country.

      _D. Wilson,
      Memorials of Edinburgh,
      part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 1-2._

      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5)._

{2854}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
   The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

   Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the
   government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]
   had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence
   by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,
   he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry
   leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.
   His resentment against one party of the nobility, his
   insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,
   and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the
   famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of
   primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and
   nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish
   by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified
   by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.
   Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been
   treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was
   not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly
   to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in
   the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great
   expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it
   impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his
   devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.
   In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his
   castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was
   equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to
   the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.
   The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the
   nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so
   skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen
   conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.
   Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John
   Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the
   walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered
   to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised
   their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the
   castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 3, chapters 1-2._

      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      period 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
   The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

   In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a
   decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities
   in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the
   Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came
   into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the
   dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading
   houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in
   commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the
   Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt
   state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in
   Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as
   in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the
   spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at
   reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the
   Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread
   through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the
   century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal
   writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy
   was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It
   persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the
   stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme
   penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the
   order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting
   persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great
   peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and
   relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well
   deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was
   repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of
   exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a
   political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,
   Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel
   the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,
   which was already favourably disposed towards England, would
   have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French
   pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and
   French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the
   energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the
   war with England in which he fell, and after this it
   occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions
   by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion
   with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the
   ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the
   religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended
   the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under
   the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing
   fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the
   upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable
   circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.
   Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content
   to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve
   their own culture. But there was one among them who did not
   reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was
   the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged
   fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in
   1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the
   galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in
   the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but
   was not altogether content with the result; after the King's
   death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where
   he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in
   his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his
   knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A
   transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland
   made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end
   of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,
   according to his ideas of religious independence, which was
   not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in
   one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he
   found, he administered the Communion to little congregations
   according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater
   solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,
   one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary
   studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.
   A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)
   were present. But they were not content with partaking the
   Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged
   themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to
   uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In
   this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,
   properly so called. …
{2855}
   At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards
   Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently
   Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,
   Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a
   solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his
   congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto
   death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place
   which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express
   declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished
   for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.
   What the influence of England had not been able to effect was
   now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed
   that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his
   territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When
   she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the
   Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)
   to invade England according to an understanding with the
   French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in
   consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this
   purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great
   men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who
   were combined for the support of religion to advance with
   increasing resolution."

      _L. Von Ranke,
      History of England principally in the 17th Century,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      period 1-6._

      _G. Stuart,
      History of the Establishment of the
      Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
      books 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
   The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

   In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to
   Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for
   other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he
   was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by
   those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his
   Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.
   "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while
   he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he
   received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by
   counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had
   suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at
   Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had
   failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he
   despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of
   Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of
   Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the
   decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up
   just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned
   more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of
   December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,
   pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave
   consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from
   the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an
   opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history
   as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it
   entire:

   'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of
   our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy
   the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to
   our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto
   the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our
   duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty
   of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,
   with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,
   substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and
   establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;
   and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful
   ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and
   sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish
   them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and
   every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our
   lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend
   tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the
   which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do
   forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
   superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,
   shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this
   our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation
   by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd
   day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of
   Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John
   Erskine of Dun,' &c.

   From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from
   being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting
   among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and
   deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant
   communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the
   example, and the names of her first five elders are still
   preserved. The existence of these small Protestant
   'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the
   lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this
   again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.
   It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.
   It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the
   existing Church and State."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _John Knox,
      History of the Reformation in Scotland
      (Works, volume 1), book 1._

      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
      (volume 1)._

      _T. M'Crie,
      Life of John Knox,
      periods 5-6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
   Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
   Contemplated union of Crowns.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
   Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
   The Geneva Confession adopted.

   "In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
   Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
   signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
   their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
   Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
   hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
   accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
   of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
   … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
   May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
   Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
   but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
   afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
   proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
   before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
   their absence.
{2856}
   Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
   preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
   the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
   ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
   followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
   robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
   decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
   ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
   Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
   the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
   however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
   men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
   of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
   Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
   their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
   the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
   garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
   only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
   money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
   perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
   arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
   regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
   from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
   strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
   England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
   no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
   lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
   position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
   made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
   Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
   resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
   and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
   the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
   to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
   only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
   now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
   fighting side by side with the English against their old
   allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
   overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
   itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
   … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
   to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
   could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
   French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
   Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
   foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
   of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
   by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
   her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
   longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
   queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
   and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
   Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
   was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
   the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
   Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
   administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
   offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
   longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
   interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
   niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
   1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
   had been trained under their influence."

      _M. Creighton,
      The Age of Elizabeth,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      History of England,
      volume 7, chapters 2-3._

      _J. Knox,
      History of the Reformation in Scotland,
      book 2 (Works, volume 1)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 37-38 (volume 4)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
   The reign of Mary.
   Differing views of her conduct and character.

   In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence
   in France, to undertake the government of a country of which
   she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew
   almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed
   from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into
   a province of France. The people, who had an almost
   superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very
   inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,
   welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that
   she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with
   wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of
   searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion
   as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as
   a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of
   things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken
   the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the
   Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united
   against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between
   these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between
   them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers
   fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right
   of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the
   lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would
   the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the
   tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They
   withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her
   attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they
   refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code
   of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new
   Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the
   hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title
   of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy
   Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of
   the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the
   hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,
   it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of
   St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the
   hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were
   still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,
   chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the
   north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join
   the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of
   Huntly and his son to their death.
{2857}
   And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was
   determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for
   all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign
   princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own
   favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter
   herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,
   Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,
   and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to
   England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the
   handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of
   history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of
   him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by
   making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.
   Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,
   by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his
   protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had
   power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,
   meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,
   it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James
   Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were
   outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of
   smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a
   house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed
   him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the
   murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the
   Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by
   her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and
   to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she
   gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."
   In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the
   Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by
   hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the
   barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to
   oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen
   surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell
   escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died
   about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage
   the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the
   railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a
   murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle
   built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few
   days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.
   These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in
   his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to
   him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote
   them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder
   with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the
   box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons
   acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert
   Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed
   the demission of the government to her son, and desired that
   Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James
   VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from
   France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her
   prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported
   by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at
   Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received
   from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined
   in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after
   many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February
   8, 1587.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 6._

   "In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have
   fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,
   there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman
   of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the
   contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.
   … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy
   of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.
   Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who
   does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her
   reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof
   that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen
   years' residence in England, which began when she was only
   twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was
   mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the
   fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.
   It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples
   of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made
   against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not
   disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to
   the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once
   competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not
   without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that
   the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for
   his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend
   that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing
   everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,
   whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been
   married only six months. … What brought sudden and
   irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but
   the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of
   Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

      _E. S. Beesly,
      Queen Elizabeth,
      chapter 4._

   "Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
   the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
   was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
   magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
   carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
   was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
   an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
   men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
   Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
   her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
   John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
   Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
   secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
   notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
   unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
   friendly statesmen.
{2858}
   Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
   abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
   would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
   the public business which they were transacting might have
   been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
   boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
   exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
   judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
   abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
   strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
   fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
   into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
   to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
   was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
   character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
   when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
   hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
   and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
   incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
   even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
   which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
   putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
   not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
   of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
   loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
   nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
   forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
   submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
   Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
   essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
   turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
   by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
   Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
   considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
   the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
   common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
   of a bad business, she was very wretched."

      _J. Skelton,
      Essays in History and Biography,
      pages 40-41._

   "To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is
   necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with
   Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in
   the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or
   with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order
   to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from
   other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if
   their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her
   guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not
   consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed
   that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an
   absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.
   Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,
   and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and
   ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no
   pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of
   the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the
   plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,
   immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly
   attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is
   compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that
   she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,
   ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only
   vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in
   firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of
   murder a middle position—a position of even partial
   indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,
   well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the
   murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still
   more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such
   exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of
   will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be
   regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was
   not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her
   husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not
   conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of
   marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which
   were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of
   all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's
   absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do
   not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She
   was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of
   will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match
   for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.
   She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to
   which she had any strong aversion."

      _T. F. Henderson,
      The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,
      chapter 1._

   "The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined
   to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her
   address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely
   figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and
   active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and
   society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her
   purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;
   she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to
   render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces
   which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form
   a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of
   her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a
   profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we
   admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an
   inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human
   mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of
   passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes
   momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not
   thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by
   the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the
   treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,
   transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay
   sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was
   betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be
   accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of
   alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the
   appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in
   some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her
   numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious
   captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed
   on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of
   bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent
   spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder
   if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced
   her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated
   only by the first of these motives, had formed against the
   life of Elizabeth."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 42 (volume 4)._

{2859}

   "More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as
   to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those
   biographies vary in their representations of her character,
   that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could
   be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party
   has unhappily been more considered than the development of
   facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to
   animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary
   gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some
   three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of
   Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and
   sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the
   opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the
   question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been
   pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,
   irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard
   erected by women for one another, lower than that which is
   required of them by men? Are they less acute in their
   perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate
   frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the
   exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady
   Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous
   memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It
   is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase
   witnesses from the female portion of the household of the
   Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether
   Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their
   mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen
   Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied
   honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest
   hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they
   shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

      _S. H. Burke,
      Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty
      and the Reformation Period,
      volume 4, chapter 7._

   "Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of
   her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most
   noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,
   opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct
   on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in
   the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to
   admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,
   that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service
   of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer
   spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful
   friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be
   impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake
   the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active
   brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,
   she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred
   and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as
   the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would
   seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained
   from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was
   supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most
   exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of
   her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.
   Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of
   beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a
   fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure
   in small and harmless things no less than in such as were
   neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion
   and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared
   something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She
   would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of
   Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of
   personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities
   which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower
   to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more
   eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

      _A. C. Swinburne,
      Mary Queen of Scots
      (Miscellanies, pages 357-359)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 41-47 (volume 4)._

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland,
      volumes 1-2._

      _F. A. Mignet,
      History of Mary, Queen of Scots._

      _A. Strickland,
      Life of Mary, Queen of Scots._

      _J. Skelton,
      Maitland of Lethington._

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      Appendix._

      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos of English History,
      series 4, chapter 32,
      and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.
   Accession of James VI.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
   Distracted state of the kingdom.
   The Reformed Church and John Knox.

   During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,
   Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in
   1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who
   was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed
   him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions
   that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse
   to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming
   influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the
   other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was
   a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the
   kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties
   rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the
   various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were
   being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which
   the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference
   between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.
   The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the
   reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the
   bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent
   conditions of qualification. …

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

   Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been
   constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews
   when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain
   notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been
   strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.
   … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence
   available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine
   right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing
   strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."
   On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

      _M. C. Taylor,
      John Knox
      (St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series)._

{2860}

   "It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John
   Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead
   like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having
   been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest
   of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could
   have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland
   had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is
   the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the
   world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive
   him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'
   Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the
   battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,
   in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his
   windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were
   his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.
   I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,
   these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of
   him."

      _T. Carlyle,
      Heroes and Hero-worship,
      lecture 4._

   "Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone
   entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,
   Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,
   or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and
   dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser
   elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,
   and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to
   Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is
   greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel
   that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,
   and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery
   social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon
   gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his
   cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his
   friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to
   differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the
   whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than
   to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was
   in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly
   sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have
   fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe
   in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point
   of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the
   reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of
   violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,
   towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was
   no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his
   language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his
   judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we
   have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the
   weather and witches were common to him with all men of his
   time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,
   he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and
   enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly
   instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental
   principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical
   direction, he was not in the least characteristically
   reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere
   the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work
   and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,
   when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A
   man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is
   something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and
   severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is
   little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily
   respect, and even admiringly cherish."

      _J. Tulloch,
      Leaders of the Reformation: Knox._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
   Civil War.

   "All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.
   Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and
   ranged themselves under the standards of the contending
   factions. In every county, and almost in every town and
   village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of
   distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and
   extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which
   hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled
   itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a
   little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which
   divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both
   these there were persons with views and principles so
   different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.
   With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and
   they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her
   means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's
   authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among
   these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As
   Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the
   regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the
   town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],
   scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged
   the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,
   without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in
   this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties
   at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had
   smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous
   practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with
   one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help
   of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from
   England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh
   and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a
   siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection
   from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 53-56 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
   Episcopacy restored.
   The Concordat of Leith.
   The Tulchan Bishops.

   "On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
   assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
   not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
   strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
   attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
   plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
   ministers.' …
{2861}
   By the 1st of February the joint committees
   framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
   chief;

   1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds
   of dioceses, should remain as they were before the
   Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or
   till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;
   and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a
   chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no
   more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and
   should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

   2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the
   Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

   Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and
   State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …
   struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain
   argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,
   and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the
   ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of
   the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if
   they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to
   laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly
   paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these
   even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the
   door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the
   episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.
   … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and
   chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of
   papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger
   expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded
   to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It
   was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a
   cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true
   Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not
   pretend to the apostolical descent."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   "The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the
   Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown
   origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought
   into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an
   agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that
   the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother
   easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the
   bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be
   bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay
   lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 54 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
   The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

   "The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of
   popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to
   support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a
   dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never
   entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of
   popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the
   house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young
   king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so
   dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious
   sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and
   solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of
   Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his
   chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the
   most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the
   popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the
   reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of
   Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under
   the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority
   with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's
   evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,
   and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the
   realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's
   confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his
   household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;
   and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an
   act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by
   all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers
   zealously promoting the subscription in their respective
   parishes."

      _T. M'Crie,
      Sketches of Scottish Church History,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland,
      volume 3, 1581._

      _J. Row,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.
   The Raid of Ruthven.

   "The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant
   over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,
   and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation
   which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of
   nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from
   their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by
   its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James
   found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was
   detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to
   Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under
   restraint. This continued until the following June, when the
   king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox
   had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was
   known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high
   treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to
   the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He
   never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

      _W. Robertson,
      History of Scotland,
      book 6 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Cameos from English History,
      series 5, chapter 20._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
   The Black Acts.

   "James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
   which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
   prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
   basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
   assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
   were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
   pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
   were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
   Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
   entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
   Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
   was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
   declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
   another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
   over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
   to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
   to be chastised.
{2862}
   By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
   by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
   of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
   chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
   the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
   Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
   another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
   privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
   conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
   speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
   with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
   contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
   and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
   resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
   turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
   thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
   the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
   the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
   with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Calderwood,
      History of the Kirk of Scotland,
      volume 4, 1584._

      _Scottish Divines
      (St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),
      lecture 2._

      _J. Melville,
      Autobiography and Diary, 1584._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
   The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
   Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

   The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the
   crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably
   bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still
   considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who
   possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights
   merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who
   were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a
   few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends
   were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was
   little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church
   lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally
   ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with
   some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor
   afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 37 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
   The Gowrie Plot.

   "On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was
   setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by
   Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie
   [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who
   told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a
   man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the
   affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and
   begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.
   James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty
   other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,
   and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he
   had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him
   there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They
   recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head
   thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to
   make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small
   room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour
   was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed
   in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for
   the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the
   towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their
   escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the
   dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice
   could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or
   object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,
   the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the
   man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions
   that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as
   they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight
   years later, however, some letters were discovered which
   seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the
   King's person.

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Scott,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 40 (volume 2)._

      _P. F. Tytler,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 4, chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.
   Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
   The Five Articles of Perth.

   After his accession to the English throne, James became more
   deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and
   ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to
   force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with
   arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of
   dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose
   completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair
   endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained
   in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this
   had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the
   Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five
   articles in which the latter were embodied became for two
   years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between
   the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the
   general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an
   Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit
   to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.
   These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined
   kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and
   episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private
   dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The
   powers of the court of high commission were actively brought
   into play to enforce them.

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
   Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

   "Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
   of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
   and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
   ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
   hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
   country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
   but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
   employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
   Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
   'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
   nations, slain on that occasion.
{2863}
   It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
   desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
   through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
   Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
   or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
   Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
   this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
   church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
   should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
   upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
   therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
   some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
   were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
   distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
   English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
   black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
   kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
   saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
   that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
   them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
   book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
   presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
   bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
   tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
   and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
   Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
   stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
   tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
   killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
   had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
   burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
   provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
   caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
   considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
   after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
   quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
   defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
   the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

      _T. Fuller,
      Church History of Britain,
      book 11, section 2 (volume 3)._

   "One of the most distinct and familiar of historical
   traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,
   and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or
   Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the
   identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the
   same inconclusive result that often attends the search after
   some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted
   by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a
   son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones
   Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed
   tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant
   in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was
   read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the
   lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,
   for they threw stools to a great length.'"

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
   The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

   "Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every
   district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national
   resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an
   appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,
   not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book
   of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of
   granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series
   of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds
   of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own
   homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of
   Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the
   injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued
   to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In
   answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in
   such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants
   offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes
   into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,
   burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This
   was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A
   committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these
   classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and
   were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their
   common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole
   of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency
   arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were
   thus organised with official approval into one large and
   powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which
   speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As
   soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of
   supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own
   homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress
   of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs
   to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables
   "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at
   once to the capital in order to concert measures for their
   common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The
   summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it
   was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,
   that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of
   the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,
   which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.
   D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,
   through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of
   Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.
   The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors
   and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made
   to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing
   circumstances."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 1._

   "It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
   National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
   The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
   Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
   flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
   women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
   wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
   names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
   of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
   initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
   flow.
{2864}
   From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
   Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
   their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
   subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
   day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
   receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
   names."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,
      lecture 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _R. Chambers,
      Domestic Annals of Scotland,
      volume 2, pages 116-127._

   The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

   "The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed
   at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year
   of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year
   1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and
   acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of
   persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at
   the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for
   the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,
   and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,
   gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under
   subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the
   causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,
   and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,
   and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We
   all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after
   long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of
   true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the
   truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe
   with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our
   hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,
   that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,
   pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
   the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the
   blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many
   and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk
   of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this
   realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our
   salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession
   of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry
   Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly
   professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,
   both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of
   religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,
   as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon
   His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all
   contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of
   papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
   damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
   But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of
   that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the
   Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his
   tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our
   Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the
   sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,
   the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted
   doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and
   rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our
   imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,
   number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard
   sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false
   doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,
   without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants
   departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of
   baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real
   presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of
   the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,
   with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,
   forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent
   divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his
   profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his
   canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,
   worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of
   kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers
   for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with
   his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of
   advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular
   confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his
   general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their
   sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of
   supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;
   his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
   crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's
   good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined
   therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his
   three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
   his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the
   subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band
   conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all
   his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in
   the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of
   this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,
   in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy
   sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,
   promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,
   that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and
   discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according
   to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the
   pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul
   in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are
   stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,
   swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
   the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding
   thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to
   corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the
   Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open
   enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the
   Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
   great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
   the Lord Jesus.
{2865}
   We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,
   and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and
   call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds
   and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,
   oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any
   worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,
   through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed
   in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in
   the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And
   because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our
   religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good
   behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable
   instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the
   maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,
   we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,
   handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
   authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of
   Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of
   justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies
   within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a
   strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,
   and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father
   and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like
   as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,
   annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,
   canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and
   practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true
   religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk
   discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours
   of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as
   Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.
   Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition
   may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the
   Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James
   VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to
   be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as
   adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law
   established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James
   VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.
   Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of
   our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James
   VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but
   also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do
   abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out
   of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be
   punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.
   Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do
   condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous
   doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and
   Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established
   in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or
   libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished
   (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.
   Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to
   the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all
   sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the
   maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,
   trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or
   restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act
   164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament
   19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all
   erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine
   against the religion presently professed, or containing
   superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the
   people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of
   them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do
   condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going
   to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such
   other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of
   God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors
   among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished
   for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.
   James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for
   maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the
   purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church
   of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national
   synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
   discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of
   religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,
   exercised, preached, and confessed according to the
   reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act
   99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament
   12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.
   Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament
   6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the
   ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had
   raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that
   then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,
   and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered
   in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments
   (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently
   administered) according to the confession of faith to be the
   true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and
   discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the
   word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the
   confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of
   God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James
   VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly
   do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy
   sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of
   the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently
   professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the
   society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.
   Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other
   face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at
   that time by the favour of God established within this realm,
   which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's
   true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
   religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this
   realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,
   the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors
   repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament
   1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act
   106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament
   12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all
   magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to
   search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,
   Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament
   11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's
   Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and
   declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways
   to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of
   Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true
   religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).
{2866}
   On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is
   declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion
   and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the
   one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal
   and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,
   but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,
   who shall not give their confession and make profession of the
   said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall
   give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise
   to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign
   Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to
   fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and
   professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies
   and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of
   whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have
   joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set
   forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to
   the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is
   repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at
   Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
   April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.
   Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they
   are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities
   raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the
   true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the
   King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of
   Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful
   judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament
   8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only
   to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of
   this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act
   79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament
   8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the
   commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and
   England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,
   declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no
   more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient
   privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only
   the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath
   been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of
   their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities
   preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true
   religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by
   Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.
   ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI
   and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their
   coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall
   make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the
   presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of
   their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the
   utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His
   most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and
   according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of
   Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and
   right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
   within this realm (according to the confession of faith
   immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all
   false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people
   committed to their charge according to the will and
   commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and
   according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in
   this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal
   God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the
   Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
   peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to
   root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true
   worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God
   of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His
   Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen
   in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands
   of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,
   and according to the laudable example of our worthy and
   religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
   which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a
   general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's
   subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending
   the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed
   in the confession of faith above written, and a former large
   confession established by sundry acts of lawful general
   assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set
   down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years
   with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this
   Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon
   His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the
   King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God
   and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that
   they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand
   and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;
   and confessing with our mouths, that the present and
   succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the
   aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We
   noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons
   under subscribing, considering divers times before, and
   especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed
   religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the
   kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally
   contained and particularly mentioned in our late
   supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby
   profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly
   declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all
   the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend
   the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of
   all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship
   of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public
   government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen
   till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in
   Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the
   purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and
   professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after
   due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe
   that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,
   complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of
   God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid
   confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed
   reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts
   of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of
   the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and
   ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws
   and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions
   are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the
   aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of
   them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that
   we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other
   particular heads of papistry abjured therein.
{2867}
   And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to
   God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or
   inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a
   further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we
   promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to
   continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid
   religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
   contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and
   to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,
   all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same
   heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention
   or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour
   of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and
   authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we
   shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,
   stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's
   Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
   preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and
   laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and
   assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of
   maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,
   with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,
   against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever
   shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken
   as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in
   particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly
   suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever
   suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this
   blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or
   impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by
   common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but
   on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further
   and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive
   motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us
   shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently
   make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither
   do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or
   what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
   put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
   ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship
   of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom
   for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And
   because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our
   proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we
   join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who
   have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully
   promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,
   both in public, in our particular families and personal
   carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of
   Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
   godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we
   owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction
   may be observed without violation we call the living God, the
   searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our
   sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to
   Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's
   everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour
   and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to
   strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
   our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that
   religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the
   glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of
   us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands
   all the premises, &c."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
   The First Bishops' War.

   In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
   with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
   Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
   hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
   the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
   deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
   Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
   Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
   Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
   received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
   sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
   back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
   Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
   among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
   bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
   and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
   the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
   Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
   King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
   subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
   Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
   possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
   had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
   of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
   Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
   army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
   King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
   each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
   skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
   road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
   fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
   this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
   Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
   the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
   that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
   should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
   which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
   done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
   the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
   further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
   Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
   pain of civil penalties.
{2868}
   Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
   King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
   and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
   King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
   sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
   former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
   France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
   out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
   the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
   supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

      _M. Macarthur,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. R. Gardiner,
      History of England, 1603-1641,
      chapters 88-89 (volume 9)._

      _D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.
   The Second Bishops' War.-
   Invasion of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
   The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
   The exploits of Montrose.

   At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the
   Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl
   of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted
   their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of
   the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of
   Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert
   at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise
   forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably
   successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his
   Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,
   received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose
   attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at
   Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and
   baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered
   to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened
   by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated
   northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into
   Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the
   Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,
   Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be
   attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,
   2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than
   1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while
   Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these
   victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this
   terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and
   looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of
   the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose
   was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards
   through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying
   everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate
   Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were
   at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a
   dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the
   city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the
   4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed
   Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite
   with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his
   wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on
   Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now
   nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a
   force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at
   Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.
   "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few
   killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,
   15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His
   triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in
   possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the
   country was broken up; every organ of the recent
   administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.
   The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'
   Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs
   compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated
   his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,
   if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it
   came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months
   before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.
   It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of
   the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.
   Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in
   September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the
   help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200
   mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and
   surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with
   4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy
   until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a
   few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were
   massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the
   courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been
   due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

      _W. Chambers,
      Stories of Old Families,
      pages 206-217._

      ALSO in:
      _M. Napier,
      Montrose and the Covenanters._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 73 (volume 7)._

      _Lady V. Greville,
      Montrose._

      _P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 7._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
   Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
   and his surrender to the English Parliament.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.
   Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
   Scottish loyalty revived.
   Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

   "The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
   once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
   Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
   consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
   and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
   England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
   Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
   Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
   With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
   might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
   truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
   northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
   acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
   recognized Charles II.
{2869}
   They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
   the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
   seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
   loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
   earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
   but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
   prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
   possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
   conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
   Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
   throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
   engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
   to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
   nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
   commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
   and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
   parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
   Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
   treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
   by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
   that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
   convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
   attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
   thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
   from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
   been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
   detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
   leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
   was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
   declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
   even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
   begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
   satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
   effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
   native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
   remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
   kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
   immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
   the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
   hesitate."

      _J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
      The Protector,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 75 (volume 7)._

      _P. Bayne,
      The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
      chapter 6._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).
   Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

   War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English
   Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,
   Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He
   passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of
   July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the
   old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a
   purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called
   the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as
   those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),
   had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed
   and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified
   by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken
   flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was
   supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate
   neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed
   himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be
   brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to
   withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which
   lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.
   The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled
   by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These
   heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass
   through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore
   apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no
   choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie
   continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.
   A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,
   separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay
   a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking
   the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient
   places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the
   right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,
   was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure
   the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his
   power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong
   for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills
   towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow
   ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his
   right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert
   saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding
   advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and
   fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was
   entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack
   was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the
   3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch
   horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon
   their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole
   army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable
   confusion."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, pages 694-696._

   "The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the
   total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000
   prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;
   the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of
   the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were
   allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into
   England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,
   as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as
   slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the
   day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to
   Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;
   Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the
   capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example
   thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still
   held out [until the following December] against the English.
   The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of
   the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,
   while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

      _N. L. Walford,
      Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
      chapter 6._

      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 6._

{2870}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
   Charles' rash advance into England.
   Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

   "Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at
   Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired
   to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the
   royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the
   national policy. Charles, without further question of his real
   intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.
   After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,
   Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of
   December. He had little to do to make himself master of
   Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the
   army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any
   result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible
   storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously
   ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out
   again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting
   the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.
   The king had been invited to take its command in person.
   Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing
   himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that
   the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;
   and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of
   11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll
   was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to
   Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when
   on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to
   those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his
   promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also
   proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and
   similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other
   market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although
   the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they
   were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,
   however, had few important accessions of strength. There was
   no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were
   shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was
   opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with
   their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached
   Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the
   city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth
   for all male subjects of due age to gather round their
   Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the
   26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,
   with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched
   rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him
   6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him
   with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war
   would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the
   General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with
   30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the
   victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the
   royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from
   hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into
   Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other
   side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very
   considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the
   end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,
   which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The
   prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the
   subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the
   most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and
   Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and
   three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."
   Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks
   cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering
   and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got
   ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment
   in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,
   with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told
   often enough.

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 27._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      part 6, letters 96-124._

      _Earl of Clarendon,
      History of the Rebellion,
      book 13 (volume 5)._

      _A. Bisset,
      Omitted Chapters of English History,
      chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 2 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).
   The conquest completed by Monk.

   When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into
   England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in
   Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general
   soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most
   resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,
   supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all
   the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which
   had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared
   before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.
   He carried the town; and, following the example and
   instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the
   sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.
   Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and
   other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the
   enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,
   by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its
   independence, was reduced to total subjection."

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 60 (volume 5)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapter 4._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
   Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

   In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
   Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
   left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
   arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
   Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
   arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
   Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
   towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
   sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
   king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
   had until then been deficient.
{2871}
   No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
   decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
   despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
   circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
   whom that country had already once recognized as her
   conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
   usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
   very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
   pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
   defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
   Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
   Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
   without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
   twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
   success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
   when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
   be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
   England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
   the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
   which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
   occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      History of Oliver Cromwell,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 11, chapter 1._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
   The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
   The oppression of the Covenanters.

   "In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed
   with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of
   national independence. And true it was that the yoke which
   Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the
   Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and
   that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered
   the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the
   independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal
   than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,
   he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other
   dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew
   the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without
   any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to
   set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was
   disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to
   respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it
   had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings
   much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was
   established by law. As to the form of worship, a large
   discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the
   English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected
   from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were
   likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the
   doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the
   Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By
   the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was
   detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with
   the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of
   England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The
   country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.
   Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of
   the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,
   sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,
   attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of
   Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the
   government a half toleration known by the name of the
   Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western
   lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the
   obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the
   obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance
   of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their
   own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial
   reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,
   but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised
   under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,
   could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly
   to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths
   and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without
   scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they
   mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open
   rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:
   but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.
   Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were
   beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed
   at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned
   at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the
   Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that
   the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the
   audacity of their despair."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at
   the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every
   man of them, with one exception, is said to have been
   intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its
   effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.
   The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a
   Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding
   any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own
   parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 2, page 729._

   "The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in
   the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by
   which every law that had been passed in the Scottish
   parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The
   legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 29._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Aikman,
      Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
      volume 1, books 2-5._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
   Lauderdale's despotism.
   The Highland host.

   "A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
   Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
   were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
   authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
   the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
   order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
   whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
   these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
   all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
   from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
   of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
   office, though their only crime had been their want of
   compliance with Lauderdale. …
{2872}
   The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
   provoking as his public administration was violent and
   tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
   faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
   duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
   were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
   throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
   hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
   law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
   rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
   of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
   understand in a literal sense; and because the western
   counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
   profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
   state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
   agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
   clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
   guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
   live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
   the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
   tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
   them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
   industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
   most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
   the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
   free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
   loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
   the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
   council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
   gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
   reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
   concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
   has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
   Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
   contrary to my interest.'"

      _D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 66 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      books 2-3._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 78 (volume 7)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).
   The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

   "The public indignation which these measures [under
   Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop
   of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded
   as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the
   Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the
   Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three
   miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve
   Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of
   Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the
   Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was
   weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul
   murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly
   increase the severity of the persecution against their party.
   … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a
   conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the
   troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings
   at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May
   preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor
   in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.
   The day selected for the service was the first of June. No
   secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to
   John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he
   was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at
   Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in
   that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,
   he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of
   horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had
   assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and
   moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence
   of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his
   first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded
   only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an
   adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was
   approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed
   with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for
   the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.
   The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took
   up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were
   descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder
   Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and
   fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great
   effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made
   several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking
   parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with
   considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old
   soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch
   and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.
   Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a
   portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the
   dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion
   and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their
   number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse
   killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The
   victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers
   poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks
   had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse,
      chapter 4._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Old Morality._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
   Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

   "The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
   forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
   Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
   friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
   him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
   arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
   incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
   or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
   Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
   disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
   irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
   told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
   One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
   their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
   to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
{2873}
   While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
   an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
   Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
   Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
   prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
   Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
   Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
   that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
   Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
   England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
   Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
   would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
   answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
   for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
   were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
   to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
   Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
   in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
   Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
   under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
   preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
   indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
   hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
   softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
   again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
   Scotland."

      _G. Roberts,
      Life of Monmouth,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 79 (volume 7)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
   The pitiless rule of James II.
   The hunting of the Cameronians.
   Claverhouse's brutalities.

   In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's
   brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.
   "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,
   he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which
   he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and
   as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs
   of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very
   early period an occasion presented itself for displaying
   severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,
   under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,
   having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge
   neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against
   them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and
   Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.
   The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to
   death. The duke was present at the executions, which he
   witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were
   curious experiments."

      _A. Carrel,
      History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
      chapter 2._

   "Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the
   Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …
   Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man
   mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only
   condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly
   threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his
   violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant
   which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his
   'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was
   publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market
   cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and
   Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting
   ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty
   persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as
   they were called after their leader, afforded the government a
   plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had
   yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several
   weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

      _J. Taylor,
      The Scottish Covenanters,
      chapter 4._

   "He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice
   of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,
   established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the
   most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the
   empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the
   priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused
   himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe
   while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood
   he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from
   the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of
   their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our
   islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With
   this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect
   harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled
   Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on
   which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the
   Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of
   the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and
   wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by
   John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked
   men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and
   to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.
   The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage
   and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent
   temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the
   Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is
   mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate
   all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the
   peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an
   endless task."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Cunningham,
      History of the Church of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse._

      _J. Aikman,
      Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
      volume 2, books 5-12._

      _A Cloud of Witnesses._

      _J. Howie,
      The Scots Worthies._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.
   Argyll's invasion.
   Monmouth's rebellion.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.
   Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

{2874}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
   The Revolution.
   Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
   Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

   "At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
   march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
   outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
   and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
   broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
   the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
   On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
   Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
   an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
   This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
   resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
   Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
   administer the government. To this William consented. The
   Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
   and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
   a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
   But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
   Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
   minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
   proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
   a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
   discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
   amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
   end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
   terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
   The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
   identical with the English declaration, but containing the
   additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
   grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
   proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
   form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
   Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
   Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
   The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
   bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
   continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
   reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
   June 1690."

      _E. Hale,
      The Fall of the Stuarts,
      chapter 13._

   "Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be
   built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King
   William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was
   most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous
   that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely
   laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the
   ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its
   discipline. But he began to see that some concession was
   necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th
   of April the Parliament met which was to give us the
   Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to
   abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over
   all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore
   all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their
   livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the
   parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical
   legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for
   so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch
   Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to
   the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before
   exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of
   our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster
   Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all
   the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections
   of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the
   Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for
   nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now
   restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by
   them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers
   it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,
   negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course
   of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians
   gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was
   established, and the government of the Church was placed
   entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster
   Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at
   length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms
   and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A
   pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read
   amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was
   finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It
   is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not
   once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very
   anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,
   while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed
   the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,
   though there were many in the Church who would have wished
   them revived."

      _J. Cunningham,
      Church History of Scotland,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).
   War in the Highlands.
   The Battle of Killiecrankie.

   "The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
   James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
   soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
   small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
   subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
   had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
   convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
   general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
   troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
   James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
   apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
   enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
   before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
   vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
   formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
   rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
   he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
   to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
   approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
   Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
   Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
   commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
   faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
   Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
   and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
   ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
   undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
   exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
{2875}
   They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
   on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
   where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
   change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
   given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
   columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
   had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
   which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
   was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
   slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
   army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
   successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
   repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
   retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
   respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
   flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
   were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
   provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
   the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
   the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
   duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
   was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
   and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
   castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
   and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
   they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
   and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
   songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
   the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
   seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

      _W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapters 6-7._

      _M. Morris,
      Claverhouse,
      chapter 11._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).
   Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

   After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the
   command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish
   officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to
   coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid
   to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his
   cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a
   secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the
   regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so
   inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to
   their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of
   Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with
   such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by
   the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed
   and returned to their homes."

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
      book 10 (volume 4)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
   The Massacre of Glenco.

   A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying
   of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted
   upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to
   all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to
   William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it
   contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The
   last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.
   Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort
   William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to
   administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an
   earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the
   snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,
   the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he
   reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the
   indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,
   however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of
   allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.
   But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice
   particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was
   erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it
   appears that an extensive combination was formed for his
   destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had
   plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William
   that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the
   highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had
   applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had
   received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,
   and for their greater security, countersigned by the king
   himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels
   as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on
   assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found
   insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and
   also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan
   could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper
   vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of
   thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded
   even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an
   indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when
   a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of
   Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The
   soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;
   and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered
   vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily
   hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening
   at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his
   father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack
   their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to
   suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their
   swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were
   impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered
   their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the
   massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of
   day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from
   his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore
   the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired
   next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and
   deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was
   shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees
   for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the
   vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their
   fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old
   man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a
   house for concealment, was burnt alive.
{2876}
   Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their
   inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of
   musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from
   destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the
   night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.
   The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil
   Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the
   women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their
   way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in
   the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not
   confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,
   it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether
   the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders
   were considered, each part of the bloody transaction
   discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic
   cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether
   exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,
   the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered
   the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the
   government justly odious to his subjects."

      _M. Laing,
      History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
      book 10 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 4)._

      _J. Browne,
      History of the Highlands,
      volume 2, chapter 10._

      _G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 5 (volume 4), 1692._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
   The Darien scheme.
   King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

   "The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well
   nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the
   writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness
   of composition in the same person, and the actors in public
   life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,
   than those of England; so the proceedings of the national
   assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,
   except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange
   mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance
   appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with
   regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.
   … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that
   on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running
   across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards
   had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at
   war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge
   of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;
   … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which
   mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the
   other in the space of a day, and that consequently this
   passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a
   common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse
   of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was
   formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful
   colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been
   settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence
   they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the
   ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer
   his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed
   since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention
   was to offer his project to England, as the country which had
   the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,
   in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he
   repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened
   the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.
   Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and
   others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from
   parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms
   of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new
   world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with
   consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other
   European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under
   him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a
   subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to
   sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the
   rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien
   company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,
   the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the
   other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their
   little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to
   get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an
   instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be
   now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of
   cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and
   the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,
   the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the
   trade of England than all other causes put together, created
   an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,
   without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December
   of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King
   against the establishment of the Darien company, as
   detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon
   after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for
   being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's
   answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon
   after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his
   resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in
   which he disowned the company, and warned them against all
   connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather
   animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a
   proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness
   of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from
   the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in
   Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for
   the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble
   and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who
   had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from
   Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two
   months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.
   Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first
   public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of
   freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous
   idea originated with Paterson.
{2877}
   But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in
   concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the
   settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the
   governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue
   proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold
   correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less
   harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different
   governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and
   to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had
   not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into
   diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They
   lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance
   from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or
   quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that
   entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at
   Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the
   Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,
   now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered
   formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,
   ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at
   this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after
   of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no
   more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great
   suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,
   and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or
   disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second
   colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their
   country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who
   spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were
   a second time addressing the King at home against the
   settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on
   the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His
   Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,
   with respect to the different interests of trade between his
   two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more
   nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this
   opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he
   recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the
   throne, that they would consider of an union between the two
   kingdoms.'"

      _Sir J. Dalrymple,
      Memorials of Great Britain,
      part 3, book 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 4 (volume l)._

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter. 24 (volume 5)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
   Hostility to England.
   The Act of Security.
   The Scottish Plot.

   "This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation
   towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of
   strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily
   produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the
   battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a
   decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing
   restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for
   the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not
   only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition
   to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first
   opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a
   century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England
   was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and
   her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of
   queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name
   a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart
   line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure
   'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or
   any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was
   vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of
   Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused
   his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was
   called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair
   of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at
   the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the
   Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for
   the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The
   House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which
   provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation
   should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates
   reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the
   House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the
   queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The
   royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from
   policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.
   The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong
   measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting
   her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state
   of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was
   passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of
   Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament
   should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as
   that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,
   except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,
   should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;
   and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or
   linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union
   or War."

      _C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      volume 5, chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
   The Union with England.

   To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
   political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
   greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
   both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
   that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
   part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
   Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
   of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
   Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
   of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
   the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
   ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
   English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
   on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
   assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
   and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
   should be the designation of the united island; the name of
   Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
   agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
   conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
{2878}
   It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
   lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
   a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
   quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
   united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
   House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
   should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
   have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
   representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
   time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
   Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
   follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
   returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
   than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
   on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
   Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
   English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
   England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
   154. It was intended that the latter should send
   representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
   according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
   members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
   make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
   added to the 185 from England would also make about
   one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
   adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
   was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
   before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
   May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
   jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
   law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
   continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
   the express terms of the Commission."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
      series 2, chapters 12._

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 17 (volume 3)._

   The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 6, appendix 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
   Hostility to the Union.
   Spread of Jacobitism.

   "In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost
   universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite
   party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for
   settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them
   entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found
   themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an
   institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished
   a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of
   Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient
   sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.
   All the different professions and classes of men saw each
   something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own
   interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and
   lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every
   class vented their complaints against the Union the more
   loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be
   concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations
   concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the
   dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and
   some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,
   that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have
   heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh
   Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard
   an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon
   whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he
   called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The
   detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling
   passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and
   even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a
   singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,
   Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,
   drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to
   the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland
   were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it
   was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his
   fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in
   his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among
   themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of
   distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have
   repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,
   and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was
   made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf
   of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from
   France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly
   frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the
   Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,
   until the English government had warning enough to be too well
   prepared.

      _Sir W. Scott,
      Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
      series 3, chapters 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
   The Jacobite rising.

   In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
   England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
   years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
   Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
   short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
   But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
   weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
   and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
   danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
   wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
   While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
   Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
   Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
   Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
   aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
   two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
   English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
   themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
   Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
   Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
   met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
   beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
   soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
   seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
{2879}
   But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
   the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
   delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
   Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
   small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
   Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
   to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
   homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
   were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
   seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
   leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

      _J. Rowley,
      The Settlement of the Constitution,
      book 3, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. McCarthy,
      History of the Four Georges,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Pretenders,
      volume 1, chapters 3-4._

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 5-6 (volume l)._

      _Mrs. K. Thomson,
      Memoirs of the Jacobites,
      volumes 1-2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.
   The Porteous Riot.

      See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
   The Young Pretender's invasion.
   The last rising of the Jacobites.

   "As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young
   Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the
   French government at the head of a formidable armament. But
   his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm
   which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops
   which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,
   however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven
   friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the
   Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the
   29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in
   Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched
   through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,
   and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two
   thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John
   Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by
   a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at
   once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now
   at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …
   After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he
   marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December
   as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.
   Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the
   districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …
   Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single
   squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact
   secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the
   prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,
   had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose
   in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,
   though roused by a small French force which landed at
   Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles
   fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he
   found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd
   January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under
   General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had
   encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his
   Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as
   fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their
   booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the
   north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the
   armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles
   eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000
   men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments
   all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted
   fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped
   [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous
   Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers
   were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and
   Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank
   attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of
   repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures
   were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs
   were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or
   garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,
   followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for
   their purpose."

      _J. R. Green,
      Short History of the English People,
      chapter 10, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 26-29 (volume 3)._

      _R. Chambers,
      History of the Rebellion of 1745._

      _Mrs. K. Thomson,
      Memoirs of the Jacobites,
      volumes 2-3._

      _Chevalier de Johnstone,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745._

      _J. H. Jesse,
      Memoirs of the Pretenders._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.
   No-Popery Riots.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
   Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
   The Disruption of the Church.
   Formation of the Free Church.

   "Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
   fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
   opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
   abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
   restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
   letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
   conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
   internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
   these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
   party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
   of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
   The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
   ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
   Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
   presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
   matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
   In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
   congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
   an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
   popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
   majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
   by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
   settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
   into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
   that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
   although there were other principles involved in the
   conflict."
{2880}
   In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
   in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
   against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
   appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
   the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
   and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
   Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
   kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
   attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
   became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
   finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
   Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
   popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
   occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
   in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
   body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
   the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
   Government of the country, which had infringed on the
   liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
   chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
   Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
   Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
   ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
   hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
   Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
   people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
   triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
   since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
   Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
   reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
   Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
   'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
   ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
   joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
   theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
   fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
   Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

      _J. Mackintosh,
      Scotland,
      chapter 19._

   "It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can
   produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,
   abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is
   literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of
   poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the
   Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord
   Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the
   heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.
   But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that
   he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It
   was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her
   trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering
   to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on
   the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help
   themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch
   Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,
   organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone
   which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.
   … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free
   Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her
   ministrations were extended to every district and almost every
   parish in the land."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 21 (volume 4)._

   "In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was
   too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism
   remains split up into different camps. Some of the older
   secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United
   Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church
   by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

      _T. F. Tout,
      History of England from 1689,
      page 238._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Brown,
      Annals of the Disruption._

      _R. Buchanan,
      The Ten Years' Conflict._

      _W. Hanna,
      Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,
      volume 3, chapter 18
      and volume 4, chapters 6-25._

      _P. Bayne,
      Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,
      book 5 (volume 2)._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.
   Parliamentary Reform.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
   Enlargement of the Suffrage.
   Representation of the People Act.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

   ----------SCOTLAND: End--------

SCOTS,
   Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   In the War of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
      1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   The Mexican campaign of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield.
   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

SCOTT, General Winfield
   Retirement from military service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SCOTTI.
SCOTS.

      See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

SCRIBES, The.

   "The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the
   Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than
   in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the
   nearest original of the clergy of later times."

      _Dean Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 44._

   "The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular
   'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the
   first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the
   authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the
   Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,
   expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,
   without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was
   nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was
   traditional, and had to be communicated from master to
   disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and
   extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught
   orally."

      _I. M. Wise,
      History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,
      period 1, chapter 4._

SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

      See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

SCRUPULA.

      See As.

{2881}

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

   A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a
   general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead
   of singly, in separate districts.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

SCUTAGE.

   The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived
   from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the
   distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a
   certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the
   services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.
   The portion of land charged with this service constituted a
   'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five
   hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

      _K. Norgate,
      England Under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      page 54._

SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.
   Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

SCUTUM.

   A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of
   a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have
   adopted from the Samnites.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 107._

SCYRI, The.

   The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the
   second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black
   Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the
   breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared
   among the people occupying the region embraced in modern
   Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken
   the Gothic language.

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

      See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

   The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob
   violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an
   oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic
   constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew
   twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the
   democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the
   rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism
   (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek
   history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon
   as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians
   instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that
   the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 78._

SCYTHIANS, The.

   "Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in
   the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns
   his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the
   Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be
   made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and
   mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with
   that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in
   Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,
   who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the
   inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian
   settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to
   have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both
   Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has
   left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian
   people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His
   conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,
   is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the
   later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to
   denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a
   square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat
   less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the
   Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction
   from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis
   with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the
   fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,
   Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either
   occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name
   comprised tribes differing materially in habits and
   civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,
   strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,
   but living only on food derived from animals, especially
   mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying
   their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,
   themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,
   between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis
   [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he
   [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian
   race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes
   of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 17._

   "The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended
   from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the
   Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least
   half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the
   Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian
   in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the
   east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the
   Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the
   Bactrians."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
      chapter 9, footnote._

   For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

   "The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such
   slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a
   corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were
   also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first
   (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.
   They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their
   guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the
   Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of
   Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in
   the same connection with them, likewise without doubt
   consisted of slaves."

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

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens: The State,
      book 2, chapter 11._

SEARCH, The Right of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

SEBASTE.

      See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

{2882}

SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

SEBASTOPOL:
   The Name.

   "The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
   in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
   shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

      _H. N. Humphreys,
      History of the Art of Printing,
      page 68._

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

SECESH.

      See Boys IN BLUE.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

   During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to
   extort civil and political rights from the originally
   governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on
   several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,
   refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.
   The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they
   wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the
   Tribunate.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

   The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs
   was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand
   for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in
   the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

      See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

SECULAR CLERGY.

   The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because
   it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all
   the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious
   community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or
   inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note._

      See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

   The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
   to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
   of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
   determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
   born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
   period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
   is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
   empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
   Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
   irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
   celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 35, with footnote._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7._

SECURITY, The Act of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

   The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
   on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
   modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
   territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 8._

SEGONTIACI, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

   "One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
   which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
   the coast of the Irish Sea."

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

   One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
   (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
   left bank of the Saone.

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

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

      See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

      See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

   The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
   Nabatheans.

      See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

      See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

   In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
   enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
   three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
   freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
   managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
   the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
   heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
   differences arising between pson and pson within theire
   respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
   origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
   It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
   Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
   legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
   homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
   to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
   Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
   'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
   any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
   selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

      _W. T. Davis,
      Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
      pages 84-85._

      See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

   Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
   was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
   ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
   Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
   colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
   The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
   hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
   walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
   several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
   power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
   sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
   enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
   Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
   three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
   Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
   They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
   attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
   cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
   conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
   inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 8._

      See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

   ----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

   The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
   the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
   323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
   a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
   was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
   things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
   dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
   Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
   political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
   most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
   or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
   Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
   officers, but served without much distinction through the
   various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
   effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
   among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
   share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
   Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
   his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
   Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
   the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
   victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
   potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
   after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
   Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
   Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
   from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
   Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
   from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
   Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
   Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
   Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
   Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
   Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
   part of India."

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 3._

   The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
   Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
   city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
   Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
   of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
   of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
   royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
   of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
   among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
   kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
   latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire._

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 3._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
   Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
   Decay of the empire.

   "Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
   his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
   at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
   his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
   at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
   … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
   beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
   Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
   which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
   Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
   was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
   was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
   of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
   enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
   of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
   father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
   of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
   which his father had left him in a state of submission,
   asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
   under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
   countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
   satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
   There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
   independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
   longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
   from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
   With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
   and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
   his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
   Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
   protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
   Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
   Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
   principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
   otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
   it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
   Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
   Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
   about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
   129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
   his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
   detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
   about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
   of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
   obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
{2884}
   After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
   returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
   her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
   Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
   had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
   intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
   image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
   courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
   distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
   government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
   But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
   a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
   betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
   and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
   Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
   brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
   assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
   and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
   third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
   deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
   his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
   with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
   nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
   and other towns, which were already in arms to support
   Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
   Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
   Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
   Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
   submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
   acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
   maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
   Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
   Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
   the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
   brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
   Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
   exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
   manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
   insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
   He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
   Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
   Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
   The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
   country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
   Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
   otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
   Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
   countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
   him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
   fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
   general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
   against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
   Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
   Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
   Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
   of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
   parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
   at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
   the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
   remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
   was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
   whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
   and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
   Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
   brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
   brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
   'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
   Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
   Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
   Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
   and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
   general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
   keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
   been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
   Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
   Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
   but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
   "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
   shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
   strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
   decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
   Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
   the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
   more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
   Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
   was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
   opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
   Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
   succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
   227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
   by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
   Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
   years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
   younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
   Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
   extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
   man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
   of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
   the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
   Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
   satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
   was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
   confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
   Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
   Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
   had already established itself."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient History,
      lectures 103-104 (volume 3)._

{2885}

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
   The reign of Antiochus the Great.
   His early successes.
   His disastrous war with the Romans.
   His diminished kingdom.
   His death.

   Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
   war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
   satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
   old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
   Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
   Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
   near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
   Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
   (B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
   had raised the standard of independence; but after an
   obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
   put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
   West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
   reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
   of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
   resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
   Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
   only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
   Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
   event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
   in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
   [Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
   peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
   GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
   for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
   to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
   while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
   Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
   the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
   Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
   to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
   youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
   whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
   Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
   at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
   peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
   B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
   Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
   must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
   provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
   policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
   persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
   successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
   166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
   the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
   but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
   object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
   He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
   along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
   brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
   allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
   the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
   some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
   became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
   on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
   the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
   hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
   places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
   191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
   into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
   alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
   his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
   jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
   unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
   192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
   himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
   him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
   the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
   the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
   advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
   his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
   Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
   long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
   first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
   the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
   Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
   co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
   Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
   fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
   the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
   Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
   gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
   Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
   easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
   field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
   former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
   from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
   ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
   some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
   in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
   the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
   those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
   unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
   sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
   the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
   enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
   malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
   ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
   the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
   Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
   thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
   large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
   rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
   the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
   soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
   at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
   of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
   to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
   princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
   of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
   tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
   Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
   driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
   Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
   respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
   putting a bound to their influence."
{2886}
   Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
   sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
   part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
   aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
   powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of
   Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
   Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
   greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
   of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
   in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
   Lysimachia."

      _P. Smith,
      History of the World: Ancient,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy,
      The Story of Alexander's Empire,
      chapters 24 and 28._

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2._

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 65._

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
   Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
   Babylonia and Assyria.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
   Pompeius in the East.
   Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

   In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
   Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
   marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
   region.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

   He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
   Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
   in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
   of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
   kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
   and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
   his attention to Judæa.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapters 9-10._

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

   ----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

SELGOVÆ, The.

   A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
   Dumfries, Scotland.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

SELIM I.,
   Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

   Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

   Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

SELJUKS.

   See TURKS (SELJUKS).

SELLA CURULIS.

      See CURULE CHAIR.

SELLASIA, Battle of.

   The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
   War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
   of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
   Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
   and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
   Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
   king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
   instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
   Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
   Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
   time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
   foreign conqueror."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Federal Government,
      chapter 7, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Kleomenes._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SELLI, The.

      See HELLAS.

SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SEMINOLES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
      and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

   ----------SEMITES: Start--------

SEMITES, The

   "The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
   with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
   languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
   common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
   German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
   a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
   Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
   Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
   Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
   tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
   title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
   order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
   Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
   been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
   none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
   language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
   failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
   when scholars began to realise the distinction between
   language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
   race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
   science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
   is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
   the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
   are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
   languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
   to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
   Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
   yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
   which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
   the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
   meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
   Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
   Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
   purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
   not free from admixture."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Races of the Old Testament,
      chapter 4._

   "The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
   race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
   linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
   historical distribution:

   A. Northern Semites.
      I. Babylonian:
         a. Old Babylonian
         b. Assyrian
         c. Chaldæan

      II. Aramæan:
         a. Mesopotamian
         b. Syrian.

      III. Canaanitic
         a. Canaanites
         b. Phœnicians

      IV. Hebraic
         a. Hebrews
         b. Moabites
         c. Ammonites
         d. Edomites

   B. Southern Semites.
      I. Sabæans

      II. Ethiopians

      III. Arabs.

{2887}

   It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
   that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
   matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
   exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
   attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
   exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
   races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
   not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
   Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
   Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
   Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
   mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
   and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
   of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
   Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
   communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
   Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
   individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
   remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
   geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
   that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
   instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
   ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
   It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
   Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
   divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
   of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
   among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
   for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
   as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
   of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
   developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
   related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
   up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
   branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
   after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
   northward and westward to engage in more important
   enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
   Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
   which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
   the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
   Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
   canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
   finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
   effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
   the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
   the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
   then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
   Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
   the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
   shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
   riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
   date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
   valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
   western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
   they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
   former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
   As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
   navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
   forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

      See PHŒNICIA.

   Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
   Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
   mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
   advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
   the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
   among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
   desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
   position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
   themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
   West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
   political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
   home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
   decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
   [see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
   they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
   the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
   formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
   Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
   a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
   rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
   Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
   political part to the west than they did to the east of the
   Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
   closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
   they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
   … As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
   form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
   permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

      See JEWS.

   Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
   Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
   Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
   stock."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

   "The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
   [Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

   1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
   Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
   Tigris;

   2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
   and important city was Damascus; and

   3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
   formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
   geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
   Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
   history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
   Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
   second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
   commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
   East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
   civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
   while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
   place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
   between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
   world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
   only universal religions."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      page 5._

{2888}

   "If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
   organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
   shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
   nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
   and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
   nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
   reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
   … In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
   These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
   entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
   their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
   union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
   sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
   beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
   of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
   Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
   everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
   however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
   the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
   destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
   after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
   necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
   school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
   are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
   for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
   trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
   her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
   pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
   natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
   life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
   owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
   except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
   adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
   only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
   in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
   relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
   faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
   How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
   world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
   people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
   Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
   imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
   nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
   sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
   child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
   to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
   effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
   Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
   Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
   with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
   Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
   insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
   feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
   nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
   amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
   It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
   itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
   clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
   naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
   the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
   possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
   precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
   incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
   then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
   say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

      _E. Renan,
      Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
      pages 154-160._

SEMITES:
   Primitive Babylonia.

   "The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
   arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
   civilization to which they attained in and through their
   settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
   unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
   not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
   benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
   which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
   inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
   Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
   formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
   the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
   that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
   fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
   exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
   by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
   … The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
   origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
   records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
   this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
   civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
   language already long past its formative period, and a stage
   of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
   wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
   ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
   The same records also show this Semitic people to have
   extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
   Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
   Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
   corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
   with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
   Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
   did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
   direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
   that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
   mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
   attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
   is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
   well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
   civilization from another people who preceded them in the
   occupation and cultivation of the country.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

{2889}

   This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
   generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
   Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
   the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
   connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
   to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
   authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
   people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
   The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
   ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
   general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
   being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
   the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
   doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
   have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
   type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
   would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
   occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
   that they received no important contributions to their
   development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
   assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
   people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
   development of the country, and that, as a result of their
   contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
   the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
   superstition."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
   be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
   decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
   to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
   pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
   well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
   shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
   calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
   constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
   claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
   Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
   C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
   temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
   of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
   foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
   by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
   this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
   assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
   however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
   preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
   spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
   population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
   from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
   Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
   which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
   dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
   about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
   are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
   Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
   to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
   real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
   All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
   our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
   and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
   authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
   purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
   distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
   as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
   their own lives or before their own eyes."

      _F. Max Müller,
      On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
      (Nineteenth Century, 1891)._

   "Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
   by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
   Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
   alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
   Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
   Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
   learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
   He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
   of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
   lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
   peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
   the assumption that it was originally intended for another
   language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
   calls this language, which may or may not have been
   non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
   Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
   The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
   not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
   the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
   Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
   interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
   and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
   favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
   way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
   to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
   that this identification, though not impossible, is not
   proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
   either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
   Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
   latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
   as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
   supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
   rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
   included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
   Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

   1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
   the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
   to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

   2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
   Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

   3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
   Nineveh.

   4. The New Babylonian Empire.

   In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
   deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
   knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
   mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
   earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
   the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
   fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
   Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
   regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
   representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
   the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
   thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
   quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
   reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
   fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
   mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
   Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
   So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
   had been established for centuries."

      _Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
      (Academy, January 1, 1887)._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Earliest History of Babylonia
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
      "Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec)._

{2890}

SEMITES:
   The First Babylonian Empire.

   "It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
   Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
   Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
   list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
   recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
   The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
   fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
   "the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
   king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
   obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
   shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
   granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
   sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
   blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
   the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
   its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
   lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
   I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
   and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
   abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
   dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
   favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
   Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
   summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
   the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
   tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
   Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
   quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
   Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
   presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      volume 1, pages 282-283._

   "The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
   the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
   canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
   condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
   know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
   civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
   nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
   and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
   works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
      volume 1, page 40._

   "After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]
   bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of
   Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This
   ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still
   further the national system of canalization. … Five kings
   after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the
   eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304
   years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of
   Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the
   occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the
   names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings
   reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic
   race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this
   time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of
   Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name
   Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between
   Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the
   same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them
   out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political
   sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of
   the government and the national type of culture and forms of
   activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after
   century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius
   of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its
   conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force
   of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the
   prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able
   to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,
   not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because
   "they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their
   energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in
   science and art. … The time which the native historiographers
   allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This
   Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation
   of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from
   Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was
   almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the
   parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes
   the leading power in the West."

      _J. F. McCurdy,
      History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
      book 2, chapter 3,
      and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   "The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
   years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
   country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
   consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
   populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
   and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
   the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
   'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
   in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
   province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
   of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
   designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
   tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
   that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
   Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
   the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
   that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
   Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
   come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
   reigned over Babylonia. …
{2891}
   Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
   of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
   and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
   … The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
   led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
   'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
   to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
   Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
   kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
   career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
   conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
   power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
   proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
   Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
   given us such abundant evidence."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
      chapter 3._

   It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,
   founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the
   Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,
   returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,
   subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites
   of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the
   Tigris.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

   Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic
   world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt
   was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings
   which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or
   Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on
   the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or
   vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic
   types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.
   was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of
   Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the
   fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of
   Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.
   and IV.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

   All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in
   Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers
   were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.
   For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.
   Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the
   Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,
   had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated
   Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to
   be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas
   occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,
   desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his
   ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced
   to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of
   Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic
   peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 205-206._

SEMITES:
   The Assyrian Empire.

   "According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest
   about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of
   Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by
   Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The
   tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their
   chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At
   first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these
   petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the
   capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the
   frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually
   southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one
   sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by
   the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,
   enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her
   influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her
   own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary
   satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over
   again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her
   neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were
   always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established
   after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a
   century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have
   recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an
   end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one
   or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,
   and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish
   the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian
   Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help
   of military institutions whose details now escape us, although
   their results may be traced throughout the later history of
   Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these
   institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies
   of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the
   Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the
   plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the
   Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes
   whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere
   inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The
   oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach
   (Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated
   are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in
   the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs
   the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.
   … Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on
   his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged
   against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the
   king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser
   the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint
   of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards
   the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a
   period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of
   its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the
   Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of
   confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh
   is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the
   same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under
   the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after
   the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to
   have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and
   west as the frontiers of Egypt.
{2892}
   And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,
   to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new
   dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought
   into complete submission after a great victory over the
   Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both
   as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels
   of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he
   almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial
   seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and
   restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees
   from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose
   a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which
   Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This
   building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the
   village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of
   Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the
   towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the
   capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most
   populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the
   king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast
   approaching date of its final destruction. The son of
   Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long
   identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.
   Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel
   king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose
   name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and
   conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the
   whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …
   There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by
   the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of
   Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage
   to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all
   civilization."

      _G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
      A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
      chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1)._

   "The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding
   under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts
   of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to
   quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in
   Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal
   says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was
   opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by
   force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great
   number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …
   The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their
   head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set
   up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was
   necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected
   for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious
   brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before
   Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into
   a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …
   are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are
   subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,
   who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of
   his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources
   of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …
   Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in
   the history of the world. The most effective means which she
   brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in
   the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the
   subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of
   Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most
   important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was
   perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties
   and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event
   which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current
   of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the
   10th century every event of importance had originated in
   Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of
   the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we
   have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their
   miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most
   of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown
   by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything
   else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and
   even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,
   who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows
   nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."

      _L. von Ranke,
      Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
      chapter 3._

SEMITES:
   The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.

   The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian
   monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About
   626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and
   the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or
   Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his
   undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made
   governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he
   mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his
   allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise
   enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by
   one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,
   of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his
   daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a
   league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against
   Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the
   Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the
   king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged
   Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried
   away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king
   gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and
   setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies
   went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay
   their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power
   practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar
   succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become
   established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,
   Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon
   the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains
   almost unsurpassed."

      _E. A. Wallis Budge,
      Babylonian Life and History,
      chapter 5._

{2893}

   "The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each
   side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by
   the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This
   square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.
   The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks
   and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These
   walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and
   protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along
   their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over
   the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to
   flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled
   the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at
   equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed
   with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze
   posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each
   other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,
   and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The
   river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer
   walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an
   arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,
   and ferries plied continually across the water where the other
   streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all
   occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and
   even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by
   irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,
   supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.
   Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …
   There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen
   noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the
   explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the
   emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by
   the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to
   history which could have served as a model for John's
   description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four
   square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed
   through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and
   on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve
   manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city
   garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of
   the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed
   and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space
   left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they
   are all unique, have been combined in no other city."

      _W. B. Wright,
      Ancient Cities,
      pages 41-44._

   "Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained
   from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the
   establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the
   authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical
   character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always
   been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native
   authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to
   have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from
   the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these
   authors, the following is the history of the last King of
   Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first
   appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined
   to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then
   occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the
   corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was
   the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the
   grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his
   tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his
   father two months before, had already given proof of a bad
   disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been
   carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the
   youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the
   seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already
   conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.

      See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.

   The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to
   flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind
   the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we
   are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that
   the last king of Babylon was the son of the great
   Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so
   doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,
   the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls
   Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife
   of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated
   prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being
   the only testimony of secular writers, there was no
   alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet
   the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of
   Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,
   undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform
   inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and
   other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the
   problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that
   is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native
   king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.
   This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as
   bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and
   hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear
   of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn
   son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order
   that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my
   firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'
   These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the
   name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,
   and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as
   to the reason which could have induced the author to represent
   Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform
   inscription was for the first time interpreted and published
   by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of
   Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain
   the annals of the king whose fate we have just been
   discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it
   allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before
   and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the
   most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that
   of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son
   during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.
   Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:
   Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,
   acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the
   Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When
   Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met
   with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably
   slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."

      _B. T. A. Evetts,
      New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,
      chapter 11, part 2._

{2894}

   Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom
   was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in
   Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would
   appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The
   conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in
   B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession
   of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,
   invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,
   Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus
   claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient
   Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted
   worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had
   overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his
   son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual
   amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of
   the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed
   the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to
   return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.
   Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old
   Testament, were the Jews."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Primer of Assyriology,
      pages 74-78._

SEMITES:
   Hebraic branch.

      See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.

SEMITES:
   Canaanitic branch.

      See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.

SEMITES:
   Southern branches.

      See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.

   ----------SEMITES: End--------

SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

   "There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group
   of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The
   dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from
   each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic
   dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary
   unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has
   remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great
   branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch
   comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish
   group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so
   called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to
   two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.
   … The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was
   divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which
   resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of
   which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to
   Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect
   of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown
   to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of
   this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,
   Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,
   notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last
   of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being
   the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman
   nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned
   to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of
   Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of
   inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of
   Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we
   must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several
   centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had
   received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or
   Ethiopian."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 213-223._

SEMNONES, The.

   "The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements
   seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as
   nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly
   into Prussian Poland."-

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

SEMPRONIAN LAWS.

   The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were
   of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.

      See ROME: B. C. 133-121.

SENA, The Druidic oracle of.

   A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme
   western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as
   the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish
   navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._

SENATE, Canadian.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

SENATE, French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SENATE, Roman.

   "In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to
   form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of
   its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the
   canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,
   or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the
   number of senators was three hundred, because in the
   beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.
   In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at
   first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some
   man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made
   his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the
   rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators
   were selected from the whole body of the people, without any
   attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the
   senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without
   having nominated his successor, the senators served
   successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for
   periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This
   general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.
   Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of
   the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto
   it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's
   institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of
   experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times
   of personal doubt or national danger."

      _A. Tighe,
      Development of the Roman Constitution,
      chapter 3._

{2895}

   Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the
   Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the
   following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic
   ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate
   were half the state, though its number seems still to have
   been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was
   perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever
   seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators
   always Senators, unless they were degraded for some
   dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not
   hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.
   Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in
   the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many
   persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this
   august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes
   of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed
   the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of
   choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But
   official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in
   practice; and the Censors followed rules established by
   ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists
   of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech
   that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an
   Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised
   Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power
   of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to
   legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the
   Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its
   votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to
   foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except
   in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters
   which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned
   to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of
   administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to
   be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of
   the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They
   prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at
   pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the
   regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the
   financial arrangements of the State were left to their
   discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court
   of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 2._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

SENATE, United States.

   "The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and
   these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The
   representation is then equal, each State having two Senators
   and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made
   among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.
   The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the
   higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer
   period of service, make it the more important body of the two.
   The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and
   acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing
   legislation that is more characteristic of the House of
   Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,
   and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and
   reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is
   more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower
   body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval
   the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must
   ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of
   ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
   Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
   whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The
   Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot
   originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy
   occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the
   governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next
   meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the
   usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the
   Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same
   manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate
   itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has
   no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his
   powers are very limited."

      _W. C. Ford,
      The American Citizen's Manual,
      part 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Federalist,
      Numbers 62-66._

      _J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution,
      chapter 10 (volume 2)._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 10-12 (volume 1)._

      See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SENATUS-CONSULTUM.
SENATUS-DECRETUM.

   "A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,
   and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might
   interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called
   Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction
   between the terms being that the former was more
   comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several
   orders or Decreta."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 6._

SENCHUS MOR, The.

   One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the
   Brehon Laws.

SENECAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.

SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).

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

SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

SENNACHIES.

   One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the
   ancient Irish.

SENONES, The.

   A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
   Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
   Sens.

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

   The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
   the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
   with the Romans.

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.

SENS, Origin of.

      See SENONES.

SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).

      See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.

SEPARATISTS.

      See INDEPENDENTS.

SEPHARDIM, The.

   Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492
   are called the Sephardim.

      See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.

SEPHARVAIM.

      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SEPHER YETZIRA, The.

      See CABALA.

SEPOY: The name.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

{2896}

SEPOY MUTINY,
   of 1763, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

   Of 1806.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

   Of 1857-1858.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

SEPT, OR CLAN.

      See CLANS.

SEPTA.

      See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.

SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.

SEPTIMANIA:
   Under the Goths.

      See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;
      also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.
   Occupation by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.
   Recovery from the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.

SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.
   The dukes and their successors.

      See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

SEPTUAGINT, The.

   "We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old
   Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a
   solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and
   understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].
   There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of
   the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the
   versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his
   request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that
   the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many
   Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually
   forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an
   impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,
   which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."

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

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson Smith,
      The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
      lecture 4._

      _F. W. Farrar,
      History of Interpretation (
      Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3._

SEQUANA, The.
   The ancient name of the river Seine.

SEQUANI, The.

      See GAULS.

SERAI.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.

      See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;
      also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

SERAPEUM, at Memphis.

   "The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]
   rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and
   by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had
   long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover
   it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the
   earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at
   Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at
   Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime
   was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his
   tomb."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 88._

SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.

   "There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,
   yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the
   foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,
   ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.
   [of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the
   persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes
   the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King
   Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and
   North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."

      _Sir B. Burke,
      The Book of Orders of Knighthood,
      page 329._

SERBONIAN BOG.

   "There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,
   but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in
   length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it
   they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very
   narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast
   heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,
   by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of
   the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that
   it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,
   unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their
   way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.
   For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by
   degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them
   that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief
   they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help
   one another, but without any possibility either of returning
   back or escaping certain ruin."

      _Diodorus
      (Booth's translation)
      book 1, chapter 3._

   According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so
   graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern
   celebrity to Milton's allusion (_Paradise Lost, ii.
   502-4_), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He
   describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the
   northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean
   by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the
   only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory
   that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that
   the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt,
      volume 2, appendix._

SERBS, The.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).

SERES.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SERFDOM.
SERFS.

   See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.

SERGIUS I.,
   Pope, A. D. 687-701.

   Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.

   Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.

   Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.
   Siege by the English.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.
   Final capture by the English.
   Death of Sultan Tippoo.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.

   See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.

SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.

SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

SERTORIUS, in Spain.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.

{2897}

SERVI.

   See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.

SERVIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.

   The first important modification of the primitive Roman
   constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.

      See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

SERVILES, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

SERVITES, The.

   The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"
   better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven
   Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,
   and has a considerable number of houses still existing.

SESQUIPES.

      See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

SESTERTIUS, The.

      See AS.

SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SESTUNTII, The.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

SETTLEMENT, Act of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

SEVASTOS.

   The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
   "Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
   protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."

      _G. Finlay,
      History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.

      See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.

SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
   St. George, for England,
   St. Denis, for France,
   St. James, for Spain,
   St. Anthony, for Italy,
   St. Andrew, for Scotland,
   St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
   St. David, for Wales,
   were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
   Christendom.

SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.

      See ANTILLES.

SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.

      See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.

SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.

   "The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after
   the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'
   of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of
   the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by
   Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is
   said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by
   Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the
   two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture
   ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population
   of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon
   it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city
   by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed
   necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy
   tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,
   afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he
   says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city
   having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned
   by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the
   Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which
   the city had extended."

      _H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      pages 56-57._

SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.

      See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SEVEN MOUNTS, The.

      See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.

SEVEN PINES, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.

      See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.

   "The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
   sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
   Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
   most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
   most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
   together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
   serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
   constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
   history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
   argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
   statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
   the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
   Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
   Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
   Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
   lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
   Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
   Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
   or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
   the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
   'Know thyself,'
   'Nothing too much,'
   'Know thy opportunity,'
   'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'

   … Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten
   persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
   those words bore in his day, but persons of practical
   discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn
   of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not
   employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance
   forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the
   first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation
   grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or
   effect—a proof that political and social prudence was
   beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 29._

{2898}

SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.

      See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.

   ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Its causes and provocations.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Campaigns in America.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   English Naval Operations.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
      and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   Campaigns in Germany.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The conflict in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The Treaties which ended the war.
   The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.

   Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain
   were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at
   Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next
   month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between
   Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a
   hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and
   Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,
   Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.
   Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither
   Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was
   stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of
   Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe
   Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England
   Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi
   as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,
   from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the
   boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except
   that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be
   included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape
   Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,
   retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at
   Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the
   West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of
   the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,
   and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,
   the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the
   French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,
   retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain
   Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops
   in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in
   Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in
   the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her
   side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,
   Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to
   Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the
   Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British
   conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of
   cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the
   Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same
   state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss
   of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain
   New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace
   of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was
   signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all
   pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King
   of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him
   by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to
   restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the
   fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in
   the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace
   with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to
   evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but
   he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The
   Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

   "Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,
   it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The
   substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,
   as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,
   simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,
   strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the
   civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.
   Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;
   and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from
   east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general
   'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but
   Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere
   expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of
   opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and
   restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the
   one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little
   dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey
   from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them
   one other time:

   1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping
   him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have
   palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We
   have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and
   what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—
   Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be
   conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone
   through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;
   and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated
   Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World
   henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding
   itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,
   Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of
   Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's
   Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the
   infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland
   henceforth. …

   2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at
   last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were
   not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all
   others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.
   America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,
   were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History
   of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,
   according to my best conjecture, and comparison of
   probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not
   everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my
   Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have
   done us benefit! …

{2899}

   3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,
   with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such
   opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old
   confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the
   piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To
   Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it
   or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the
   balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!
   France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,
   governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous
   pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail
   it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless
   fermentation, generally into dry-rot."

      _T. Carlyle,
      History of Friedrich II.,
      book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9)._

   The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.

      _Parliamentary History,
      volume 15, page 1291,_

      _Entick's History of the Late War,
      volume 5, page 438._

SEVEN YEARS WAR:
   The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
   Great.

   "Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of
   by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The
   enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;
   that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of
   Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two
   garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of
   Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further
   estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia
   by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in
   the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The
   Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was
   computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including
   part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the
   frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.
   The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at
   Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they
   estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their
   losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to
   160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles
   to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,
   the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and
   even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost
   destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been
   sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the
   prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.
   Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,
   but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the
   rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony
   was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had
   suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the
   goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,
   which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia
   excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no
   doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former
   abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like
   manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new
   wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the
   human mind; no man benefits by example."

      _Frederick II.,
      History of the Seven Years War
      (Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17._

   ----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------

SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.

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

SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.

SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.
   Campaigns in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SEVERUS, Wall of.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.

   ----------SEVILLE: Start--------

SEVILLE:
   Early history of the city.

   "Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was
   singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar
   entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified
   it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians
   of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with
   its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called
   Hispalis."

      _E. E. and S. Hale,
      The Story of Spain,
      chapter 18._

SEVILLE: A. D. 712.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.
   Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

   ----------SEVILLE: End--------

SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SEVIN, Battle of (1877).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SEWAN.

      See WAMPUM.

SEWARD, William H.
   Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

   In President Lincoln's Cabinet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.

   The Trent Affair.

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

   The Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

   Attempted assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

   In President Johnson's Cabinet.

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

SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

SHACAYA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

SHAH, OR SCHAH.

      See BEY; also CHESS.

SHAH JAHAN,
   Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.

SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.

SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.

SHAHPUR.

   One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of
   which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was
   built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and
   received his name.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 4._

{2900}

SHAKERS, The.

   "From the time of the first settlements until the age of the
   Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,
   [in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The
   first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or
   Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of
   their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or
   society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.
   It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New
   York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the
   following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic
   societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their
   property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with
   other real estate. The value of their houses and personal
   property is not given. The population of all the communities
   consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young
   persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339
   females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of
   population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which
   we are not able to account save on the supposition that there
   are permanent causes of decay now at work within the
   communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of
   enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers
   about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of
   the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed
   to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in
   1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her
   to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with
   eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near
   Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed
   remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of
   celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the
   church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with
   the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all
   the societies in New York and New England were founded; and
   under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership
   lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …
   After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff
   gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of
   them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,
   male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual
   also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and
   that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first
   in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There
   are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first
   heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The
   second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious
   Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into
   which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived
   until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,
   and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day
   of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began
   with the establishment of their church, and will go on until
   it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and
   property they do not take the position that these are crimes;
   but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will
   have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as
   here. They believed in spiritual communication and
   possession."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 51-56._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 117-232._

SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.

      See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.

SHAMANISM.

      See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.

SHARON, Plain of.

   That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which
   stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.
   Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.

SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

SHASTAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.

SHASU, The.

   An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and
   with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest
   antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and
   the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as
   far as the river Euphrates."

      _H. Brugsch,
      History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHAWMUT.

   The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,
   Massachusetts, was built.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

SHAYS REBELLION.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

SHEADINGS.

      See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

SHEBA.

   "The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
   Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).

      _F. Lenormant,
      Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
      book 7, chapter 1._

      See, also,
      ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHEKEL, The.

   "Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of
   Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the
   precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in
   the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus
   equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers
   this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the
   Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each
   equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina
   into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5
   English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence
   from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the
   normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5
   troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."

      _H. W. Chisholm,
      On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
      chapter 2._

SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation
of peace between England and the United States.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
      AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.

   ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.
   Possession taken by the Virginians.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.

{2901}

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.
   Purchase from the Six Nations.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.
   Campaigns in the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
      1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
      (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
      (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).

   ----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------

SHENIR, Battle of.

   A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
   Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.

SHEPHELAH, The.

   The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast
   which the Philistines occupied.

SHEPHERD KINGS.

      See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.

SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:
   In the Battle of Stone River.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

   At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   Raid to Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

   Raid to Trevillian Station.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   Campaign in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

   Battle of Five Forks.

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

SHERIFF.
SCIRGEREFA.

   "The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands
   at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called
   Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of
   the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first
   was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the
   people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the
   people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority
   gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we
   find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in
   and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop
   on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the
   militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served
   under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents
   served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,
   the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the
   last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
   sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment
   in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the
   scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the
   acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability
   was never refused."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapter 4._

      See, also,
      SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

SHERMAN, General W. T.:
   At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

   Removal from command in Kentucky.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Battle of Shiloh.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

   The second attempt against Vicksburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The final Vicksburg campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The capture of Jackson.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).

   The Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

   Meridian expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

   Atlanta campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

   March to the Sea.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),
      and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

   The last campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
      and (APRIL 26TH).

SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.

SHERSTONE, Battle of.

   The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund
   Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.
   1016.

SHERWOOD FOREST.

   "The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no
   reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from
   the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of
   the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest
   once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into
   both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by
   eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite
   hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best
   known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin
   Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.

      _J. C. Brown,
      The Forests of England._

SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:
   8-13th Centuries.
   The Northmen in possession.

      See NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SHI WEI, The.

      See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.

SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.

      See ISLAM;
      also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
   A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

SHINAR.

   See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SHIP OF THE LINE.

   In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than
   74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed
   in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a
   "line-of-battle ship."

SHIP-MONEY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.

SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SHIPWRECK, Law of.

      See LAW: ADMIRALTY.

{2902}

SHIRE.
SHIREMOOT.

   "The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately
   superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share
   of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an
   official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to
   the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese
   was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties
   owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or
   scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's
   steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff
   held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the
   year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare
   the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the
   constituting officer."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1)._

      See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;
      EALDORMAN; and GAU.

SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.

      See GERRYMANDERING.

SHOGUN.

      See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

SHOSHONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SHREWSBURY, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.

SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

SHULUH, The.

      See LIBYANS.

SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.

      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

SHUPANES.
GRAND SHUPANES.

   The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 1._

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).

SHUSHAN.

      See SUSA.

SIAM.

   "The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call
   themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the
   greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of
   the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also
   generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural
   limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on
   one side by the British possessions, on the other by the
   French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the
   Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and
   draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen
   basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again
   as that of France, has a population probably less than
   6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or
   Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which
   is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and
   China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper
   Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and
   in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British
   territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or
   Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of
   Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King
   of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred
   chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.
   Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the
   Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean
   'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three
   races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,
   'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese
   are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil
   and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold
   character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their
   laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the
   Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had
   from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the
   middle of the present century. But since the abolition of
   slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by
   Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master
   of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys
   absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …
   A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the
   title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no
   power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most
   of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house
   officers are Englishmen."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 3, chapter 21._

   The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.
   1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of
   Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional
   legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of
   substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are
   accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of
   embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended
   with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other
   divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was
   founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of
   Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course
   of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."

      _Sir J. Bowring,
      Kingdom and People of Siam,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

   "For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;
   but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the
   first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)
   was concluded."

      _G. G. Chisholm,
      The Two Hemispheres,
      page 523._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. R. Colquhoun,
      Amongst the Shans,
      introduction by T. de La Couperie,
      and sup. by H. S. Hallett._

SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.

   Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle
   of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the
   country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a
   Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack
   upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,
   Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of
   Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The
   conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but
   soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into
   the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater
   acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;
   wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or
   exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.
   Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now
   called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to
   the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of
   China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."

      _W. Coxe,
      Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
      part 2, chapter 1._

{2903}

SIBUZATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SIBYLS.
SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

   "Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of
   "Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,
   and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the
   Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king
   and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for
   a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went
   and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the
   six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but
   they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went
   away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the
   same price for the remaining three. At this the king was
   astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They
   said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,
   and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So
   he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more
   from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest
   of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two
   men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men
   of the sacred books."

      _T. Arnold,
      History of Rome,
      chapter 4._

   "Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are
   met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the
   Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The
   Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'
   Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines
   ('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from
   Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.
   299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,
   v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the
   Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud
   Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these
   were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,
   in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are
   all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'
   books, and there seems to have been little difference between
   them."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1)._

   "Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend
   of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the
   elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;
   and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius
   Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by
   others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were
   written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the
   south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon
   palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his
   description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written
   upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of
   acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so
   much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the
   means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies
   and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been
   consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran
   and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of
   the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with
   the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the
   name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the
   Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the
   Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the
   last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …
   Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan
   Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And
   St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who
   belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'
   sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.
   She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs
   and prophets of old."

      _H. Macmillan,
      Roman Mosaics,
      chapter 3._

   "Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared
   at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the
   name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of
   the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike
   on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost
   another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the
   most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to
   place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo
   adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the
   weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers
   of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold
   stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."

      _A. P. Stanley,
      Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
      lecture 47 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Dionysius, History,
      book 4, section 62._

      See, also, CUMÆ.

SICAMBRI,
SIGAMBRI,
SUGAMBRI.

   See USIPETES;
   also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SICARII, The.

   See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.

   The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
   Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
   Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
   Itali.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

SICELS.
SICANIANS.

      See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SICILIAN VESPERS, The.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILIES, The Two.

      See Two SICILIES.

   ----------SICILY: Start--------

SICILY:
    The early inhabitants.

    The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
    fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
    of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
    its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
    eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
    time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
    whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
    sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
    adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
    Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
    more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
    driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
    race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
    the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
    occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
    the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
    possession of several points on the coast, and of some
    neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
    commerce with the natives.
{2904}
   The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
   Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
   the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
   tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
   The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
   Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
   and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
   who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
   they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
   destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
   Sicily."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.

SICILY:
   Phœnician and Greek colonies.

   "Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of
   antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in
   Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,
   first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence
   of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history
   of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made
   more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the
   island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks
   came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy
   the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners
   that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland
   region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But
   there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the
   growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.
   Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer
   the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of
   being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But
   instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks
   largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without
   any general conquest, the whole island became practically
   Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in
   Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its
   time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,
   as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian
   colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did
   in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were
   not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their
   foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were
   settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the
   older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that
   their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels
   in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek
   settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician
   settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from
   Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in
   Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied
   small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their
   trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern
   Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached
   to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the
   Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to
   their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,
   Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the
   time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently
   dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,
   partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had
   been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern
   corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest
   of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of
   which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the
   other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the
   mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in
   after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle
   of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two
   branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a
   small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site
   for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,
   though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards
   the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its
   Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the
   All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the
   modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was
   the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of
   the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East
   became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before
   the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred
   against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great
   central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.
   It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as
   opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel
   subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was
   directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said
   that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the
   earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was
   the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in
   Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other
   plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.
   Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek
   towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to
   the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused
   it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But
   it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most
   likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites
   to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the
   8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,
   Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the
   first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in
   Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.
   Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast
   of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and
   that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he
   was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The
   settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of
   Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called
   Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the
   new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula
   made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on
   which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the
   Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and
   fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …
   Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers
   to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Story of Sicily,
      chapters 1-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._

{2905}

SICILY: B. C. 480.
   Carthaginian invasion.
   Battle of Himera.

   During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.
   480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an
   appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited
   by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city
   by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to
   reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender
   footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,
   the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of
   the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible
   slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those
   who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made
   slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and
   scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable
   tidings.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 43._

SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
   Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
   Its disastrous failure.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
   Carthaginian invasion.

   The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its
   neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens
   against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same
   protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,
   against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the
   Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his
   grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.
   Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand
   savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and
   laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was
   carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its
   inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were
   destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet
   remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and
   imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the
   fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of
   the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were
   overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct
   evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and
   then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,
   demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is
   stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera
   and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it
   utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;
   the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where
   Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called
   Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the
   site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,
   Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned
   home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an
   armament even greater than before, and the great city of
   Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its
   population was very great; comprising, according to one
   account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000
   males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another
   account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;
   numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as
   indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,
   especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and
   pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its
   fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile
   in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these
   placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the
   Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was
   evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The
   Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending
   much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died
   of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon
   succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at
   Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela
   and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have
   been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who
   had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace
   was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which
   gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,
   and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and
   Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been
   half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by
   its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 9 (volume 3)._

SICILY: B. C. 397-396.
   Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,
   and his war with the Carthaginians.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

SICILY: B. C. 394-384.
   Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.

SICILY: B. C. 383.
   War with Carthage.

   Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh
   war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of
   war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius
   had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of
   serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was
   the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and
   sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The
   Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his
   troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged
   for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the
   entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While
   negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding
   to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his
   army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them
   with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced
   a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed
   the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating
   peace at heavy cost.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 83._

SICILY: B. C. 344.
   Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

SICILY: B. C. 317-289.
   Syracuse under Agathokles.

   See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

SICILY: B. C. 278-276.
   Expedition of Pyrrhus.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

{2906}

SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
   The Mamertines in Messene.
   First war of Rome and Carthage.-
   Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
   The Romans in possession.

      See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.

SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
   Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
   The Roman siege of Syracuse.

      See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.

SICILY: B. C. 133-103.
   Slave wars.

      See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.

SICILY: A. D. 429-525.
   Under the Vandals, and the Goths.

   "Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to
   the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in
   Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been
   nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died
   A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the
   Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of
   Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of
   the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly
   tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the
   decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is
   possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it
   is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the
   island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway
   of Odovacar."

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

   Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and
   reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from
   invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits
   and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.

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

SICILY: A. D. 535.
   Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 550.
   Gothic invasion.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
   Conquest by the Saracens.

   The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the
   Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an
   influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor
   Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.
   Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and
   Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established
   himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to
   improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the
   Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had
   set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines
   were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens
   occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited
   some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval
   armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then
   carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo
   capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for
   the first time, in 836. The war continued with various
   success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and
   the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces
   recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently
   occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year
   859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to
   preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying
   a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of
   Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,
   and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some
   districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of
   arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the
   exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their
   territory, to a later period."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 1, chapter 3, section 1._

   "Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of
   the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to
   Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens
   displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly
   resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above
   twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the
   mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have
   been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
   been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the
   Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the
   Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the
   rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and
   clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.
   The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,
   Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
   Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of
   Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had
   the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and
   glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52._

   A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.
   undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of
   his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes
   commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil
   himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople
   procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the
   prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans
   of Apulia."

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

SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.
   Norman conquest.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
   Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
   Prosperity and peace.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.

SICILY: A. D. 1146.
   Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.
   Under the Hohenstaufen.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.

SICILY: A. D. 1266.
   Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies
   by Charles of Anjou.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
   The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
   Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
   Transfer to the House of Aragon.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SICILY: A. D. 1313.
   Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

SICILY: A. D. 1442.
   Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,
   or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SICILY: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown of Naples from
   those of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SICILY: A. D. 1530.
   Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.

      See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.

{2907}

SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.
   Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.

SICILY: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
   Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
   Austria in exchange for Sardinia.

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

SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Occupation by the Spaniards.
   Cession to Spain, with Naples,
   forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.
   Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

SICILY: A. D. 1821.
   Revolutionary insurrection.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Patriotic rising.
   A year of independence.
   Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
   Liberation by Garibaldi.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------SICILY: End--------

SICULI, The.

   See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.


SICYON,
SIKYON.

   "Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
   pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows
   from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
   northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
   testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
   one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
   shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
   the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
   immigration dissolved the political connection between the
   cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
   families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
   assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
   the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
   engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
   were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
   time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
   family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
   Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
   tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
   wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
   devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.

SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
   The Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.

SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

SIDON, The suicidal burning of.

   About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
   revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
   which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
   prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
   on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
   resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
   escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
   and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
   conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
   such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
   the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 90._

SIDONIANS, The.

      See PHŒNICIANS.

SIEBENBÜRGEN.

   The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
   having reference to seven forts erected within it.

      _J. Samuelson,
      Roumania,
      page 182._

   ----------SIENA: Start--------

SIENA:
   The mediæval factions.

   "The way in which this city conducted its government for a
   long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
   calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
   rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
   discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
   the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
   Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
   Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
   noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
   themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
   government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
   plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
   influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
   however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
   rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
   authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
   Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
   as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
   administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
   government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
   from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
   Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
   showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
   is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
   bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
   the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
   Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
   formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft
   received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
   who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
   factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
   they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
   that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
   were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
   of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
   the traditions of these parties were handed down from
   generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
   16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
   Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
   Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
   [1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
      chapter 3._

{2908}

SIENA: A. D. 1460.
   War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

   ----------SIENA: End--------

SIENPI, The.

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

SIERRA LEONE.

   "During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
   blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
   British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
   these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
   that their future home; while others followed the army, to
   which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
   ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
   those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
   London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
   land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
   a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
   poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
   Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
   colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
   this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
   England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
   whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
   … On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
   square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
   immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
   river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
   one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
   climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
   years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
   natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
   'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
   enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
   names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
   The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
   infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
   60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
   Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
   hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
   1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
   of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
   farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
   from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
   character than the original founders of the colony, and no
   little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
   These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
   joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
   Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
   the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
   and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
   suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
   was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
   regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
   cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
   colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
   of its increase of population from that time."

      _J. L. Wilson,
      Western Africa,
      part 4, chapter 2._

SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE:
      A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
      1790;
      1791 (OCTOBER);
      1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
      1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SIFFIN, Battle of.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

SIGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.

      See USIPETES;
      also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SIGEBERT I.,
   King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.

SIGEBERT II.,
   King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.

SIGEL, General Franz.
   Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
      1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

   Command in the Shenandoah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
   King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
   King of Germany, 1410-1437;
   Emperor, 1433-1437;
   King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.

   Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.

   Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.

   Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.

   Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.

SIGNORY, The Florentine.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.

SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.

SIKANS.
SIKELS.

   See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.

SIKHS, The.

   "The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
   a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
   vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
   reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
   to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
   Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
   wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
   Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
   he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
   creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
   ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
   father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
   preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
   the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
   toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
   a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
   disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
   religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
   successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
   supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
   committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
   enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
   Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
   successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
   Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
   on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
   the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
   principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
   which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
   importance.
{2909}
   Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
   offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
   city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
   … The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
   Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
   of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
   the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
   did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
   authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
   standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
   military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
   directed by a strong central authority, will always become
   powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
   decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
   already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
   bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
   succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
   the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
   simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
   he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
   'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
   must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
   Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
   equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
   distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
   no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
   nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
   propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
   himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
   nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
   years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
   into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
   the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
   and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
   But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
   and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
   masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
   secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
   confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
   authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
   that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
   force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
   The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
   established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
   with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
   extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
   the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
   Peshawar in 1823.

      _G. B. Malleson,
      The Decisive Battles of India,
      chapter 11._

   The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
   the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
   and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
   related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.

      ALSO IN:
      _J. D. Cunningham,
      History of the Sikhs._

      _Sir L. Griffin,
      Ranjit Singh._

SIKSIKAS,
SISIKAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

SIKYON.

      See SICYON.

SILBURY HILL.

      See ABURY.

SILCHESTER, Origin of.

      See CALLEVA.

   ----------SILESIA: Start--------

SILESIA:
   Origin of the name:

      See LYGIANS.

SILESIA: 9th Century.
   Included in the kingdom of Moravia.

      See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
   Declared an integral part of Bohemia.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
   Participation in the Bohemian revolt.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
   Campaign of Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
   Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
   Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
   Charles XII. of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
   Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).

SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
   Cession to Prussia confirmed.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.

SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
   Overrun by the Austrians.
   Recovered by Frederick the Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
   Again occupied by the Austrians.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
   Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.

SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
   Final surrender to Prussia.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.

   ----------SILESIA: End--------

SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.

   The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
   Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
   possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
   to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
   Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.

SILESIAN WARS, The Third.

   The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.

      See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.

SILINGI, The.

   See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
   Siege and capture by the Russians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

SILLERY, The Mission at.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.

SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.

   A very ancient and most important inscription which was
   discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
   into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
   only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
   the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
   philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
   centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
   form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
   Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
   therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
   of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."

      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone-Lore,
      page 118._

{2910}

SILPHIUM.

      See CYRENAICA.

SILURES, The.

   An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
   represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
   of Britain.

      See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
      also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

   The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

SILVER-GRAYS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
      also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.

SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1893.

SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

SIMPACH, Battle of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

SIN.
SINÆ.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINDH.

      See SCINDE.

SINDMAN, The.

      See COMITATUS.

SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SINGIDUNUM.

      See BELGRADE.

SINIM.

      See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

SINITES, The.

   A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
   Lebanon.

SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).

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

SION.

      See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

SIOUX, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.

SIRBONIS LAKE.

      See SERBONIAN BOG.

SIRIS.
SIRITIS.
THURII.
METAPONTIUM.
TARENTUM.

   "Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
   where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
   side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
   settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
   Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
   Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
   even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
   the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
   Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
   the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
   Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
   Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
   scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
   length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
   [B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
   historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
   settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
   Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
   but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
   compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
   the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
   both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
   site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
   three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
   maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
   Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
   Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
   Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
   been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
   do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
   The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
   celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
   Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
   was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
   from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
   about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
   Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
   the supremacy of the Romans."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

SIRMIUM.

   Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
   of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
   operations in that region.

SIRMIUM:
   Ruined by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

SIRMIUM:
   Captured by the Avars.

      See AVARS.

SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.

SISSETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

SIX ACTS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SIX ARTICLES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.

      See FIVE NATIONS.

SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.

SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.

SKALDS.

      See SCALDS.

SKINNERS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
      and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

SKODRA (Scutari).

      See ILLYRIANS.

SKRÆLINGS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

SKUPTCHINA.

   The Servian parliament or legislature.

{2911}

SKYTALISM.

      See SCYTALISM.

SLAVE:
   Origin of the servile signification of the word.

   The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
   derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
   people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
   name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
   Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
   were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
   (exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
   was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
   to the style of the last Byzantines."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 55, foot-note._

      See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.

      See SPARTACUS;
      and ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.

   After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
   filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
   continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
   these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
   estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
   simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
   product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
   hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
   rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
   its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
   supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
   and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
   crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
   Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
   insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
   successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
   was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
   Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
   mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
   from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
   Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
   both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
   the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
   Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
   former established his ascendancy and called himself king
   Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
   battles.

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 48,
      and book 6, chapter 55._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      chapter 9._

   ----------SLAVERY: Start--------

SLAVERY: Ancient.
   Among the Oriental races.

   "From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
   conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
   modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
   Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
   not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
   Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
   historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
   Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
   conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
   the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
   among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
   naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
   The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
   Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
   times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
   character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
   countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
   Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
   Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
   slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
   ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
   there is much need for an account in which the sources of
   information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
   utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
   sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
   were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
   labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
   uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
   and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
   slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
   became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
   represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
   the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
   was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
   become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
   rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
   distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
   equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
   the Sudras."

      _R. Flint,
      History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
      pages 128-129._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations._

SLAVERY:
   Among the Greeks.

   "The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
   impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
   very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
   of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
   philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
   time to time protesting against the necessity of the
   institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
   human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
   very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
   the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
   ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
   into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
   regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
   markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
   a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
   since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
   Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
{2912}
   In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
   part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
   Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
   themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
   the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
   only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
   particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
   trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
   Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
   first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
   population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
   is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
   mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
   disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
   number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
   was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
   the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
   greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
   much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
   cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
   who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
   slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
   In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
   methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
   their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
   insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
   DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
   Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
   Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
   those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
   the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
   owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
   population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
   tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
   position differed in but few respects from that of the
   barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
   were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
   Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
   position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
   the statements of writers with great caution, since they
   undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
   cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
   is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
   The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
   very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
   the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
   in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
   with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
   at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
   marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
   possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
   separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
   it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
   earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
   then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
   proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
   and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
   purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
   agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
   slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
   differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
   make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
   the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
   any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
   very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
   no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
   modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
   persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
   working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
   those who were the property of the State and the temples,
   there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
   exceeded that of the free population."

      _H. Blümner,
      The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2)._

SLAVERY:
   Among the Romans.

   Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
   never known elsewhere, before or since.

      See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

   Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
   of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
   reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
   never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
   permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
   off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
   slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
   slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
   absolute equality."

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 1-2._

SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.

SLAVERY:
   Villeinage.
   Serfdom.

   "The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
   ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
   may be divided into three classes:

   I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
   numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
   or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
   the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
   volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
   race of men will appear from several circumstances.

   1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
   They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
   without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
   they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
   manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
   century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
   restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
   value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
   away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
   is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
   the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
   cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
   might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
   with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
   lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.

{2913}

   2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
   their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
   actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
   marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
   encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
   considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
   nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
   slaves who married without their master's consent were
   subjected only to a fine. …

   3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
   their parents, and became the property of their master. …

   4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
   they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
   continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
   with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
   slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
   together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …

   5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
   from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
   him. …

   6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
   Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
   dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
   to shave their heads. …

   II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
   'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
   transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
   this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
   their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
   paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
   belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
   by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
   Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
   agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
   page 773.

   III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
   freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
   first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
   tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
   that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
   voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
   masters. This they did in order that their masters might
   become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
   together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
   families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
   their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
   the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
   monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
   Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
   people in France were reduced to this state at the
   commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
   xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
   Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
   struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
   contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
   practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
   executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
   method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
   or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
   time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
   hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
   restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
   the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
   it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
   frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
   vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
   liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."

      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      notes 9 and 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Gurowski,
      Slavery in History,
      chapters 15-20._

      _T. Smith,
      Arminius,
      part 3, chapter 5._

      See, also, DEDITITIUS.

SLAVERY: England.
   Villeinage.

   "Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
   peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
   conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
   and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
   render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
   would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
   Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
   all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
   those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
   slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
   become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
   and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
   [against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
   that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
   Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
   region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
   Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
   1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
   corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
   Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
   appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
   Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
   twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
   Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
   every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
   the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
   nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
   while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
   hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
   no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
   the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
   than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
   social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
   influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
   alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
   drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
   replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
   slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
   notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
   commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
   other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
   individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
   could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
   relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
   stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
   unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
   to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
   personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
   common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
{2914}
   Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
   following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
   Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
   become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
   of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
   the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
   in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
   publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
   transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
   of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
   so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
   the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
   the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
   the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
   children, gathered together from all England, were carried
   into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
   purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
   prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
   submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
   need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
   the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
   heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
   cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
   of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
   which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
   themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
   support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
   an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
   addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
   that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
   class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
   as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
   'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
   the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
   person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
   seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
   be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
   … They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
   arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
   of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
   have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
   part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
   that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
   slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
   lot, both directly and indirectly."

      _C. McL. Andrews,
      The Old English Manor,
      page 181-188._

   The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
   time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
   must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
   condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
   7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
   possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
   paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
   the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
   medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
   doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
   township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
   perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
   they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
   duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
   become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
   the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
   irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
   the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
   the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
   rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
   are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
   of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
   coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
   whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
   compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
   they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
   villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
   his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
   standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
   who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
   that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
   minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
   tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
   class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
   described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
   villani."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 11, section 132._

   "It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
   ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
   soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
   complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
   of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
   English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
   have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
   proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
   the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
   connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
   dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
   villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
   be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
   words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
   the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
   wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
   they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
   substance the same doctrine, although they use different
   terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
   difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
   same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
   distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
   free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
   distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
   'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
   although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
   else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
   come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
   from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
   the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
   … Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
   nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
   complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
   explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
   the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
   liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
   punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
   to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
   disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
   equality of condition between the English villain and the
   Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
   'nativus' indiscriminately."

      _P. Vinogradoff,
      Villainage in England,
      chapter 1._

   "Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
   England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
   of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
   thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
   secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
   privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
   became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
   serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
   thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
   finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
   number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
   fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
   under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
   the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
   the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
   the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
   the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
   a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only
   emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
   slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
   soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
   be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
   England."

      _E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Hargrave,
      Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
      (Howell's State Trials, volume 20)._

      _W. R. Brownlow,
      Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
      lectures 3-4._

      See, also, MANORS.

SLAVERY: France.
   Villeinage.

   On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
   first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.

      See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.

   "In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only
   of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were
   cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their
   lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil
   rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the
   crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile
   cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I
   should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The
   accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural
   tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either
   of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,
   they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.
   In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,
   many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became
   slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful
   lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into
   this state through inability to pay those pecuniary
   compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes
   heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect
   of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty
   of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of
   perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a
   villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …
   But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two
   classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly
   different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,
   one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of
   property, and destitute of redress, except against the most
   outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and
   Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called
   serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to
   fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after
   innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken
   place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom
   is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have
   the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons
   in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an
   example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip
   the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a
   proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not
   generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not
   abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some
   places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,
   that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by
   the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les
   lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed
   sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave
   their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any
   part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could
   these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes
   called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,
   purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.
   Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king
   to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on
   paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they
   existed in many parts when he wrote."

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1)._

   "The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the
   time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces
   annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution
   had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long
   before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches
   of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as
   the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in
   Normandy."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,
      book 2, chapter 1._

{2916}

SLAVERY:
   Germany.

   "As the great distinction in the German community was between
   the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the
   distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those
   who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom
   the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the
   more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was
   thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between
   the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing
   property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a
   certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry
   without the lord's assent; and he and his children were
   affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated
   servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,
   or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called
   Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs
   [Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural
   services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute
   property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The
   number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by
   the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their
   prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs
   and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this
   abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the
   severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was
   nearly accomplished before the 14th century."

      _Sir R. Comyn,
      History of the Western Empire,
      chapter 27 (volume 2)._

   "The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom
   in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was
   abolished:

   1. In Baden, in 1783.
   2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.
   3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.
   4. In Nassau, in 1808.
   5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom
   in his own domains so early as 1717.

   The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it
   throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it
   in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in
   the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till
   1809 that it disappeared altogether.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

   6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
   7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
   it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
   territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
   8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
   1808 and 1809.
   9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
   10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
   11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
   12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
   13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
   14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
   15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
   16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
   17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
   18. In Austria, from 1811.

   So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed
   'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of
   'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."

      _A. de Tocqueville,
      State of Society in France before 1789, note D._

SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
   Completed emancipation of the peasantry.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.
   The Bristol Slave-trade.

      See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.

SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.

SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the
Jews to perpetual bondage.

      See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

SLAVERY: Poland.

   "The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to
   the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property
   of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between
   eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an
   abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one
   thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the
   noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It
   was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases
   was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for
   distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were
   domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land
   which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the
   feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants
   were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without
   permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he
   could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land
   prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is
   remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at
   a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and
   that his slavery began when other nations became free.
   Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th
   centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,
   which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in
   the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they
   would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his
   lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,
   1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing
   his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the
   repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it
   became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that
   'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the
   peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or
   life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an
   arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the
   excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no
   help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his
   own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of
   the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the
   ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from
   which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."

      _Count von Moltke,
      Poland: an Historical Sketch,
      chapter 4._

SLAVERY:
   Rome, Italy, and the Church.

   "It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,
   even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it
   was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the
   example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont
   to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:
   thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of
   the Colonnas.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;

   Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
   Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

   Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
   meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
   any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
   slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
   Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
   foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
   sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
   which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
   abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
   Senate.
{2917}
   Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
   retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
   century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
   sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
   Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
   Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
   any right to freedom."

      _J. I. von Döllinger,
      Studies in European History,
      p. 75._

      See, also, CATTANI.

SLAVERY: Russia.
   Serfdom and Emancipation.

   "In the earliest period of Russian history the rural
   population was composed of three distinct classes. At the
   bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.
   Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,
   by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by
   insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.
   Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural
   labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about
   the country and settled temporarily where they happened to
   find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,
   distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher
   in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.
   These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small
   farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free
   agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors
   of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a
   rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the
   18th century, we find that the position of the rural
   population has entirely changed in the interval. The
   distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and
   peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have
   melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are
   regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the
   State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of
   April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not
   even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done
   nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the
   18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition
   of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject
   to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in
   some respects legally and actually distinguished from the
   slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the
   other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great
   and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and
   military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his
   predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently
   always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When
   looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the
   slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural
   labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,
   therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the
   various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed
   in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of
   this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,
   which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the
   collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible
   for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not
   wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent
   to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune
   or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th
   century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of
   serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had
   steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly
   expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided
   symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.
   in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a
   general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more
   glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than
   six committees were formed at different times to consider the
   question. But the practical result of all these efforts was
   extremely small."

      _D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 29._

   "The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],
   like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform
   enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,
   which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in
   a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly
   and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by
   the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,
   praying that their relations with their serfs might be
   regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a
   way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor
   authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country
   'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid
   down the general principles according to which the
   amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,
   and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.
   His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered
   the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over
   European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the
   Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,
   patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and
   suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other
   provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of
   course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed
   emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,
   serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not
   merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved
   instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very
   complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,
   and political future of the nation. … It was universally
   admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their
   homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the
   proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to
   how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they
   should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined
   authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main
   point at issue was whether the serfs should become
   agricultural labourers dependent economically and
   administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed
   into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor
   gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian
   peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other
   peasantry in Europe."

      _Alexander II.
      (Eminent Persons:
      Biographies, reprinted from The Times)._

{2918}

   "On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the
   emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then
   consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage
   peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class
   were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since
   been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage
   peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in
   name. A certain portion of land, varying in different
   provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every
   'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in
   buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not
   slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than
   half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this
   promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown
   (that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      Free Russia,
      chapter 51._

    "Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent
    expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great
    benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to
    improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on
    the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the
    Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not
    far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither
    be denied nor concealed even by the official press."

      _Stepniak,
      The Russian Peasantry,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
      The Empire of the Tsars,
      part 1, book 7._

SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.
   Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and
   humane labors of Las Casas.

   "When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],
   with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations
   between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to
   get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were
   undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led
   Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the
   neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of
   canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture
   men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked
   and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the
   Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and
   so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them
   captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught
   Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come
   back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids
   in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness
   to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they
   could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and
   then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes
   of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be
   sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly
   did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before
   and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of
   domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.
   Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and
   Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they
   were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.
   Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could
   have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the
   Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging
   expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus
   tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and
   in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the
   entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this
   population was dense, a little from each person meant a good
   deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold
   or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there
   were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as
   an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in
   helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No
   doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races
   had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so
   speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were
   like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon
   sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of
   personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians
   at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into
   repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be
   ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till
   the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or
   partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages
   constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom
   it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state
   somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as
   far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus
   came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at
   first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to
   sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a
   most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando
   [who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians
   to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,
   to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian
   faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about
   missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious
   order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of
   encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to
   certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the
   mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'
   or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a
   hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards
   in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,
   such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you
   are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In
   practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,
   and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of
   Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he
   pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in
   effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was
   unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has
   seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at
   first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were
   soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the
   mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,
   Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had
   become a hard one to deal with.
{2919}
   There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of
   property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a
   dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of
   vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about
   them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the
   labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against
   this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had
   his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil
   thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the
   colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the
   priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and
   he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of
   the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won
   the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of
   Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,
   with minute instructions and ample powers for making
   investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las
   Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority
   to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The
   new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have
   done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must
   be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the
   Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed
   revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work
   in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the
   Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so
   long as this provision was retained the work of reform would
   go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and
   so the talk turned to the question of sending out white
   labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of
   Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license
   to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him
   in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their
   condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and
   proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the
   difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his
   life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so
   distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.
   … In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such
   concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he
   would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion
   for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in
   the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the
   period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now
   dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or
   concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The
   fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony
   which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the
   mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves
   and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the
   wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of
   the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and
   devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final
   triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:

   1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief
   "forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty
   of excommunication."

   2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,
   the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and
   command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of
   war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian
   be made a slave.'

   This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of
   slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping
   provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be
   impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last
   compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be
   inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the
   crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of
   the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the
   dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the
   repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into
   villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Discovery of America,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Helps,
      Spanish Conquest in America._

      _Sir A. Helps,
      Life of Las Casas._

      _G. E. Ellis,
      Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 5)._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
   Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.

   "The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in
   this history is not the first and most natural one, in which
   the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the
   spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the
   house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system
   culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the
   Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing
   civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible
   degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly
   so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.
   This second period was marked by a commercial character. The
   slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the
   object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of
   barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be
   produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new
   branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more
   momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,
   indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
   of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
   Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
   however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
   Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
   while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
   after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
   multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
   immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
   void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
   the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
   the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
{2920}
   They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
   the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
   Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
   'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
   innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
   licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
   the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
   to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
   the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
   Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
   causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
   mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
   large communities of docile converts."-

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4)._

   The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
   West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
   Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.

      _Sir A. Helps,
      The Spanish Conquest in America,
      and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
      book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
   John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.
   In colonial New York.

   "From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to
   its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable
   record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was
   coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical
   doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved
   over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as
   to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company
   had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge
   to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they
   conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New
   Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received
   substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the
   subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the
   Province of New York, from the time they were first
   introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West
   India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work
   for their own benefit, and were not without hope of
   emancipation some day. But under the English government the
   condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of
   great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was
   passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a
   legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the
   English government." After the mad excitement caused by the
   pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the
   legislature turned its attention to additional legislation
   upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the
   Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their
   condition was but little removed from that of the brute
   creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the
   Province of New York, and have not found a single act
   calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."

      _G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

   A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in
   1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except
   the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.
   It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.

      _Doc. History of New York,
      volume 3._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
   Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.

   In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by
   the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the
   following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any
   Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be
   lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as
   willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall
   have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of
   God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth
   morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be
   judged thereto by authority."

      _Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      volume 28, page 231._

   "No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of
   himself to another, although the power of doing this was
   recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way
   of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there
   are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and
   sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have
   been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many
   instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted
   in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …
   It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,
   and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.

   If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
   was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
   in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
   slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
   some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
   first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
   was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
   before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
   by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
   Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
   had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
   the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
   opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
   to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
   information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
   abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
   vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
   sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
   they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
   done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
   towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
   compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
   back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
   this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
   General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
   the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
   as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
   such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
   others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
   odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
   In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
   popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
   Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
   branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
   acting under instructions from the Crown.
{2921}
   This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
   branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
   successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
   illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
   standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
   condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
   by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
   that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
   the home government.' … The action of the government [of
   Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
   Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
   to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
   and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
   learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
   was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
   the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
   violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
   Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
   on which this and the other States have carried on their
   struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
   living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
   taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
   estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
   arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
   the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
   calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
   1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
   Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
   the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
   1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
   a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
   "'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
   essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
   highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
   construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
   struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."

      _E. Washburn,
      Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
      (Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
      Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2)._

      _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
      Fifth Series, v. 3)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
   First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.
   Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.
   Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions
   for the Carolinas.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
   Early importance in South Carolina.
   Indian slavery also established.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.
   Black slaves in England.

   "The extensive proprietary interests which, during last
   century, English merchants and members of the English
   aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,
   involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.
   Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household
   servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity
   accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of
   black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar
   sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that
   in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's
   Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black
   slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were
   openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day
   represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a
   trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to
   consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';
   hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to
   labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and
   revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the
   press advertisements of the day, made their escape,
   necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For
   instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an
   advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years
   of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the
   15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which
   is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his
   throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him
   back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar
   notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,
   1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added
   that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's
   Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a
   collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a
   dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'
   for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the
   Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to
   the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;
   collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12
   years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale
   at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal
   Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we
   learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered
   for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public
   Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy
   Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at
   her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the
   small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected
   privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer
   is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged
   for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a
   sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro
   boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,
   commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was
   'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …
   The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale
   of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up
   and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a
   free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years
   been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England
   holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and
   the country generally should be declared illegal. From an
   early period in last century the subject had not only been
   debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been
   made matter of something like judicial decision.
{2922}
   At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of
   slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord
   Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,
   gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal
   existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion
   of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into
   these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,
   and that he could be compelled to return again to those
   plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it
   could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.
   It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued
   to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at
   one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.
   Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion
   to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was
   brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro
   Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,
   in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set
   foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From
   that day to the present this has remained the law of our land
   as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant
   feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he
   sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
   receive our air, that moment they are free.'"

      _Black Slaves in England
      (Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
      pages 2-3._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
   Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
   among the Quakers.
   Emancipation in Pennsylvania.

   "So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in
   Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and
   followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of
   the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and
   holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian
   religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that
   province took up the subject as a public concern, and the
   result was, advice to the members of it to guard against
   future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly
   attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their
   possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed
   the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,
   which had been before given. From this time it continued to
   keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though
   individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued
   the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended
   would have been the case after the public declarations which
   had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller
   and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore
   it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the
   members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian
   letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as
   we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of
   the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the
   Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members
   within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to
   desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they
   possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their
   condition. But that the first part of the subject of this
   exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same
   provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the
   members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the
   overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of
   it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be
   directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find
   the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.
   By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were
   subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,
   and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary
   occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present
   year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,
   giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise
   acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond
   the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be
   excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the
   same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was
   then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
   execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were
   to be disowned likewise."

      _T. Clarkson,
      History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
   emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
   first among the States to perform that great act of justice.

      _W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
   England and the Slave-trade.
   The Assiento contract with Spain.

   After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
   Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
   became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
   Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
   1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
   worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
   percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
   maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
   were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
   desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
   before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
   for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
   island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
   and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
   or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
   slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
   that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
   important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
   the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
   Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
   absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
   colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
   treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
   scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
   heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
   from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
   West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
   that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
   import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
   duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
   numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
   excluded.
{2923}
   The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
   Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
   both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
   a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
   scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
   1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
   In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
   reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
   had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
   methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
   in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
   negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
   colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
   Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
   incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
   the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
   Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
   comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
   century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
   American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
   the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
   colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
   than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
   of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
   thrown into the Atlantic."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of English in the 18th Century,
      chapter 5 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States.
      (Author's last revision),
      part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2)._

      _D. Macpherson,
      Annals of Commerce,
      volume 4, pages 141-157._

      See, also,
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
   Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
   and Parliament.

   "The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
   the different states to take measures for the gradual
   abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
   foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
   public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
   George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
   obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
   1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
   importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
   prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
   this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
   Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
   the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
   deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
   clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
   vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
   for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

      _J. Fiske,
      T/w Critical Period of American History,
      page 71._

   "During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
   law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
   amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
   assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
   the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
   sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
   after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
   met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
   royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
   session held under the republican government, the assembly
   passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
   of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
   great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
   citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
   nature."

      _T. Jefferson,
      Notes on the State of Virginia,
      query 8._

   "It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
   the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
   this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
   is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
   movement against it may be detected in some American States,
   that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
   and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
   and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
   importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
   Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
   measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
   steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

      _W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 5 (volume 2)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
   Introduction into Louisiana.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
   Questioned early in Georgia.
   Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
   The pretended Negro Plot in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
   Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

   "The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
   generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
   these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
   the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
   been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
   300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
   1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
   these, made up the African population of America, were
   scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

      _J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      page 367._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
   The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

   "For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
   of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
   action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
   below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
   death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
   any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
   [1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
   somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
   manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
   Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
   constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
   The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
   state forbade it within New England territory. It was
   conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
   Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
   is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

      _W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England,
      volume 2, pages 834-835._

{2924}

   "Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
   against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
   of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
   that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
   Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
   of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
   of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
   their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
   out before 1806."

      _E. B. Sanford,
      History of Connecticut,
      page 252._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
   The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

   "Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
   earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
   reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
   colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
   1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
   philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
   looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
   be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
   originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
   little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
   sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
   year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
   instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
   of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
   ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
   slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
   previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
   Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
   once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
   movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
   'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

      _W. E. Foster,
      Stephen Hopkins,
      part 2, pages 98-100._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. D. Johnston,
      Slavery in Rhode Island,
      part 2._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
   The causes of its disappearance.

   Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
   condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
   whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
   perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
   unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
   submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
   imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
   manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
   execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
   one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
   other, transforms those into despots and these into
   enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
   patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
   thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
   conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
   gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
   wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
   God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
   practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
   Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
   abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
   rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
   the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
   these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
   be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
   up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
   Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
   his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
   slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
   voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
   unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
   While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
   was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
   1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
   of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
   taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
   anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
   the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
   with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
   to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
   approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
   minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
   worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
   who have not the courage to divest their families of a
   property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
   Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
   opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
   robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
   America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
   disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
   such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
   northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
   disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
   Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
   the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
   milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
   of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
   de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
   conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
   great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
   afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
   other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
   recent formation of several state societies]; that he
   sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
   did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
   overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
   prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
   and information would not fail to vanquish it."

      _W. F. Poole,
      Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
      pages 25-35, and foot-note._

{2925}

   "In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
   Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
   continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
   of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
   seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
   and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
   treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
   like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
   and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
   Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
   cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
   development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
   growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
   states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
   at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
   to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
   of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
   in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
   slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
   anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
   states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
   gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
   In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
   slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
   already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
   bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
   and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
   passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
   all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
   to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
   slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
   thereafter imported."

      _J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      page 73._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Jefferson,
      Notes on the State of Virginia,
      query 18._

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1._

      _J. R. Brackett,
      The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
      (Essays in Constitutional History)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
   Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.

      See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
   Emancipation in Massachusetts.

      See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
   The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
   Exclusion forever from the Northwest
   Territory of the United States.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
   Guaranteed to Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
   The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
   Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
   of slavery on the island.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
   The institution entrenched in the Constitution
   of the new state of Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
   Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

   "In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
   English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
   including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
   of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
   cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
   buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
   1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
   vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
   Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
   Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
   British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
   convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
   In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
   slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
   prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, pages 67-68._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Clarkson,
      History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
   Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
   Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
   Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

   The following are passages from the Declaration against the
   Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
   Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
   taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
   of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
   enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
   humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
   voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
   suppression; that since the character and the details of this
   traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
   which attend it, completely developed, several European
   Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
   a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
   Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
   either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
   engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
   a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
   and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
   Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
   the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
   That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
   declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
   universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
   particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
   spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
   august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
   of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
   this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
   Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
   general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
   particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
   definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
   determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
   must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
   understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
   attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
   neglected."

      _L. Hertslet,
      Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
      volume 1, page 11._

{2926}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
   The organization of the American Colonization Society.
   The founding of Liberia.

   "Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
   missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
   transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
   the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
   the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
   was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
   founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
   when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
   Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
   interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
   project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
   Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
   Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
   project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
   supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
   encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
   attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
   this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
   interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
   the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
   Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
   to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
   notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
   Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
   object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
   Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
   desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
   enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
   organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
   draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
   With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
   the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
   during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
   and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
   coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
   carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
   where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
   the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
   May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
   reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
   the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
   most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
   exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
   would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
   necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
   whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
   for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
   had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
   2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
   unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
   became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
   landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
   was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
   penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
   'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
   attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
   to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
   profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
   of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
   earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
   was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
   do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
   1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
   colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
   President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
   such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
   the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
   the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
   of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
   jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
   residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
   receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
   delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
   the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
   vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
   out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
   construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
   colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
   20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
   made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
   Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
   John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
   Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
   of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
   that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
   of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
   Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
   its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
   states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
   On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
   anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
   sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
   Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
   Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
   proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
   reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
   While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
   site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
   and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
   carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
   emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
   obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
   of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
   Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
   as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
   out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
   Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
   secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
   tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
   of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
   seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
   the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
   the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
   Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
   November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
   schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
   ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
   colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
   firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
   valuable tract of land.
{2927}
   The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
   habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
   formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
   mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
   islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
   the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
   soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
   bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
   Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
   thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
   formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
   rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
   the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
   sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
   had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
   incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
   became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
   to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
   from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
   by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
   after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
   wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
   sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
   heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
   appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
   distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
   of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
   gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
   to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
   expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
   under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
   and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
   completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
   agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
   under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
   he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
   determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
   of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
   and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
   Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
   been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
   measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
   lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
   the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
   holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
   ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
   health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
   States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
   false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
   colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
   discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
   the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
   insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
   Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
   difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
   colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
   was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
   Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
   of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
   Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
   all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
   post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
   an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
   Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
   colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
   Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
   and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
   his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
   Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
   for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
   to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
   of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
   Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
   suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
   returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
   most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
   Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
   period of great prosperity now began." The national
   independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
   until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
   J. Roberts, was elected.

      _J. H. T. McPherson,
      History of Liberia
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies,
      series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Wilkeson,
      History of the American Colonies in Liberia._

      _A. H. Foote,
      Africa and the American Flag,
      chapters 10-11._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The opening struggle of the American conflict.
   The Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
   Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
   Abolition in Central America.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
   Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.

      See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
   Final Emancipation in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
   The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
   Nat Turner's Insurrection.

   While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
   which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
   supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
   the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
   firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
   interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
   with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
   word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
   programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
   immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
   the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
   Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
   saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
   with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
   their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
{2928}
   Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
   interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
   when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
   consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
   publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
   considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
   scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
   Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
   construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
   business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
   children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
   consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
   and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
   associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
   young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
   from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
   be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
   journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
   Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
   an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
   zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
   of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
   society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
   own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
   months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
   the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
   Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
   altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
   spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
   the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
   in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
   was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
   His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
   rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
   outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
   took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
   Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
   passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
   and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
   publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
   slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
   his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
   and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
   of public lectures through New England. Although his success
   was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
   paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
   not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
   be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
   negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
   his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
   Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
   was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
   that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
   convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
   practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
   Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
   the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
   happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
   contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
   its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
   slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
   Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
   the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
   excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
   Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
   proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
   the conspiracy."

      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
      William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
      volume 1, chapters 6-9._

      _S. J. May,
      Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
      pages 1-90._

      _G. L. Austin,
      Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
      chapter 3._

      _O. Johnson,
      William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
      chapters 1-5._

      _J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 1._

      _B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
      for the Abolition of Slavery._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
   Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
   Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
      and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
   Emancipation in the British colonies.

   "The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
   consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
   the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
   colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
   of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
   former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
   till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
   to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
   West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
   Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
   the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
   prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
   according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
   230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
   is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
   colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
   after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
   possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, pages 68-69._

      See, also,
      ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
   The Atherton Gag.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
   The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

   "Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
   difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
   States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
   and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
   was that which separated those who rejected from those who
   adopted the principle of political action. The former were
   generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
   Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
   antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
   parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
   separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
   League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
   Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
   other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
   League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
   theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
   policy."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Birney,
      James G. Birney and his Times,
      chapter 29._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1840, and 1844.

{2929}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
   The Underground Railroad.

   The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
   the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
   efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
   aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
   generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
   familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
   of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
   thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
   bondage. … The practical working of the system required
   'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
   persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
   singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
   shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
   could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
   route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
   to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
   extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
   Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
   it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
   'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
   not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
   maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
   women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
   fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
   pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
   conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
   to take their living and precious freights, often by
   unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
   way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
   many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
   two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
   2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
   approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
   and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
   Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
   secured."

      _H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      chapter 3._

      _W. Still,
      The Underground Railroad._

      _M. G. McDougal,
      Fugitive Slaves
      (Fay House Monographs, 3)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
   Attempted insurrection in Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
   The contest over the annexation of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
   Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
   The Wilmot Proviso.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
   Abolition in Venezuela.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
   Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
   The struggle for Kansas.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
   Abolition in Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
   The Dred Scott case.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
   The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
   The first war-thrust.
   General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
   in the service of the Rebellion.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
   Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
   in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
      PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
   to surrender fugitive slaves.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
      CODE.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Abolition in the District of Columbia and
   the Territories of the United States.

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

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
   rescinded by President Lincoln.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
      GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
   Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
   Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
   Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
   President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
   Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

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

{2930}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
   Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
   of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
   Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
   The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
   for its suppression.

   "While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
   respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
   central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
   north central Africa what has been so successfully
   accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
   discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
   through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
   murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
   powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
   followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
   through the personal influence of an august personage he was
   finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
   arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
   of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
   his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
   effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
   countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
   trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
   navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
   chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
   central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
   until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
   equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
   Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
   broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
   commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
   determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
   Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
   it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an
   old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
   custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
   always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
   enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
   handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
   supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
   Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
   released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
   examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
   and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
   a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
   Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
   of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
   however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
   over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
   personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
   race can effect but little. … After another period of three
   years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
   Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
   All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
   completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
   Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
   behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
   civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
   the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
   pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
   of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
   occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
   slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
   watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
   precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
   sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
   living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
   interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
   fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
   Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
   Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
   partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
   Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
   was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
   Africa.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

   The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in
   battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent
   for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and
   British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were
   equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British
   flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the
   Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the
   powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its
   opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power
   will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy
   and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of
   £120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of
   securing her territory against the malign influences of the
   slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting
   states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship
   of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as
   to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast
   towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are
   making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of
   military stations; severe regulations have been issued against
   the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been
   unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced
   administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial
   commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.
   … So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000
   annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for
   the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo
   territory."

      _H. M. Stanley,
      Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893). _

      ALSO IN:
      _R. F. Clarke,
      Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
      part 2._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.
   Emancipation in Brazil.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.

{2931}

SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.

      See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.

   ----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------

SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.

   "The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient
   literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown
   to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic
   tribes have from the first designated these their eastern
   neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the
   Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the
   Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German
   form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the
   Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic
   population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while
   they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,
   Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever
   applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must
   most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to
   call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was
   Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a
   knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them
   by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their
   western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and
   even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their
   boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the
   territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods
   and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians
   seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first
   centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes
   or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive
   home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers
   could no longer be contained within their ancient
   boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from
   without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which
   direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth
   centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By
   two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great
   masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend
   over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the
   Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population
   of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by
   their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the
   Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also
   the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they
   have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western
   territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated
   during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of
   their descendants exist. The other road by which the
   Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of
   the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the
   Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest
   westward, the Slovens."

      _V. Thomsen,
      Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 1._

   "A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of
   the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among
   ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course
   determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally
   dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the
   signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,
   therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,
   that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but
   'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'
   followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know
   not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
   speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
   barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or
   Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile
   appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and
   intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient
   historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some
   have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like
   the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in
   the old world."

      _J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 3._

      See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.

   "The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during
   the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two
   great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes
   Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,
   Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into
   Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of
   which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic
   is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the
   contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from
   the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which
   only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
   Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern
   Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast
   numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which
   is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten
   millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;
   lastly, Polish (ten millions)."

      _A. Lefèvre,
      Race and Language,
      pages 239-240._

      See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.

SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.
   Migrations and settlements.

   "The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
   seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
   the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
   Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
   incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
   South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
   one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
   important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
   North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
   later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
   the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
   play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
   the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
   Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
   appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
   settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
   Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
   view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
   of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
   the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
   Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
   the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
   the Empire. …
{2932}
   The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
   Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
   whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
   fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
   Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
   Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
   points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
   Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
   forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
   extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
   to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
   Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
   remained Greek or Roman."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Empire,
      chapter 5, section 4._

      See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

SLESWIG.

      See SCHLESWIG.

SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
      A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.

SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).

SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

SLOVENES, The.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SLUYS: A. D. 1587.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.

SLUYS: A. D. 1604.
   Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

SLUYS, Battle of (1340).

   Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second
   expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a
   French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in
   the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and
   with such success that almost the entire French fleet was
   taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.

      _W. Warburton,
      Edward III.,
      pages 77-79. _

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir J. Froissart,
      Chronicles,
      (translated by Johnes).
      volume 1, book 1, chapter 50._

SMALKALDE, League of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.

      See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,
      and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

SMITH, Captain John:
   American voyages and adventures.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;
      also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.

      See MORMONISM.

SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.

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

SMITH COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

SMOLENSK, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
      SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

SNUFF-TAKERS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

SOBIESKI, John,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,
   and his deliverance of Vienna.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

SOCAGE TENURE.
FREESOCAGE.

      See FEUDAL TENURES.

   ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
   Communism.
   Socialism.
   Labor Organization.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
   Utopias, Ancient and Modern.

   "Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
   about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
   Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
   equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
   the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
   advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
   wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
   groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
   a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
   aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
   have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
   property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
   but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
   allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
   the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
   indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
   offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
   ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
   artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
   probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
   details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
   realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
   kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
   and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
   Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
   discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
   island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
   citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
   Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
   all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
   'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
   an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
   in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
   the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
   goods, but not of women.
{2933}
   The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
   imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
   stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
   community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
   Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
   fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
   the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
   Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
   high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
   by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
   literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
   pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
   advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
   thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
   it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
   Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
   called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
   hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
   revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
   nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
   soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
   in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
   now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
   As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
   writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
   Cabet, and Louis Blanc."

      _R. D. Hitchcock,
      Socialism,
      pages 33-36._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Kaufmann,
      Utopias._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
   Socialism.
   Communism.
   Collectivism.

   "As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the
   Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions
   given by some leading French and German economists. The great
   German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those
   tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal
   than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may
   define as socialistic every tendency which demands the
   subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet
   more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every
   doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct
   the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to
   legally establish the balance by taking from those who have
   too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and
   that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a
   particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,
   etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every
   socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in
   social conditions; and in the second place at realising those
   reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it
   as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      introduction._

   "The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the
   real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To
   replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative
   method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by
   the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of
   collective capital, that is, by a method of production which
   would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')
   organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or
   common ownership of the means of production by all the members
   of the society. This collective method of production would
   remove the present competitive system, by placing under
   official administration such departments of production as can
   be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well
   as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,
   according to the amount and social utility of the productive
   labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible
   formula the aim of the socialism of today."

      _A. Schäffle,
      The Quintessence of Socialism,
      pages 3-4._

   "Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property
   over against another state, does away with all ownership, on
   the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish
   in the using, or of their own labor in creating material
   products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the
   acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or
   association under the control of the state, with the
   exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment
   procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to
   what is properly called capital, or means of production in
   private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is
   a system or form of common life, in which the right of private
   or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or
   vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by
   French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its
   affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective
   way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It
   has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word
   socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or
   united life."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 1-8._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.
   Origin of Trades Unions in England.

   "A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous
   association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or
   improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by
   our definition, expressly excluded from our history any
   account of the innumerable instances in which the manual
   workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their
   social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The
   ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,
   find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in
   Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a
   curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge
   cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad
   material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in
   any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the
   innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave
   insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which
   the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from
   the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally
   free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more
   debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge
   of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that
   there were at all times, alongside of the independent master
   craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have
   occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …
{2934}
   After detailed consideration of every published instance of a
   journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced
   that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such
   durable and independent combination of wage-earners against
   their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain
   other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed
   to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous
   existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'
   presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate
   department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was
   governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the
   employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can
   bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the
   tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,
   we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic
   advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.
   … The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts
   belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social
   grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a
   master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry
   was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one
   or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service
   as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few
   years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would
   possess the same prospects of economic advancement that
   hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary
   handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the
   striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the
   building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth
   century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor
   began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,
   and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place
   to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern
   sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some
   length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and
   on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it
   might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the
   predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is
   not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism
   has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern
   Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations
   of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is
   to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade
   Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have
   been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The
   historical proof is all the other way. In London, for
   instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken
   existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still
   exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history
   do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from
   them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed
   to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and
   broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of
   Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of
   continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or
   improving the conditions of their employment. And when we
   remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth
   century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial
   'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons
   on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular
   trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations
   suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early
   years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of
   combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in
   certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual
   multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations
   presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the
   evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we
   see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular
   institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting
   together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith
   remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,
   even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in
   a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
   raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one
   of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering
   of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'
   More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a
   permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the
   journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the
   slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of
   these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through
   which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this
   far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …
   We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the
   typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become
   a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that
   one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that
   we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master
   tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen
   Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to
   the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered
   into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working
   an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better
   carrying on their design have subscribed their respective
   names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several
   houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about
   London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several
   considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against
   them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and
   passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the
   giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,
   all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the
   journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in
   effective though sometimes informal combination, the
   organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of
   call.'"

      _S. and B. Webb,
      The History of Trade-Unionism,
      chapter 1._

{2935}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
   Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.

   "If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,
   strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and
   Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more
   practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory
   of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the
   world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the
   practical application of his own theories. The establishment
   of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he
   dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate
   for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half
   measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,
   and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose
   principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'
   (1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French
   writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.
   But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to
   others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in
   his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;
   from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it
   out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made
   good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice
   called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no
   property existed there would appear none of its pernicious
   consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the
   phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …
   Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such
   measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the
   right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property
   prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In
   1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally
   called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a
   portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of
   Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope
   of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of
   agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been
   fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of
   them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his
   hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.
   When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a
   successful effort made to bring together the society or sect
   of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one
   mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of
   goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.
   … There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,
   as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion
   of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its
   sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The
   order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of
   the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the
   doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body
   of the police into their measures; and, when this force was
   disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee
   of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as
   many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,
   and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting
   men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their
   disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to
   bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The
   leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé
   suffered death, and five others were banished."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 97-104._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.
   The Communities of the Shakers.

      See SHAKERS.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
   Robert Owen.
   His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.

   "Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
   the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
   tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
   tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
   modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
   of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
   the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
   non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
   the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
   and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
   population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
   production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
   ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
   production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
   Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
   … At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
   manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
   simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
   born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
   the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
   product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
   environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
   especially during his period of development. In the industrial
   revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
   the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
   large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
   putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
   order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
   superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
   From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
   Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
   lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
   that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
   consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
   demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
   2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
   police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
   unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
   conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
   bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
   infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
   Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
   day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
   crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
   received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
   business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
   large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
   was not content. The existence which he secured for his
   workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
   beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
   part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
   as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
   before, it would have required the working part of a
   population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
   of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
   and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
   answer was clear.
{2936}
   It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
   per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
   over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
   held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
   England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
   hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
   masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
   of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
   to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
   based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
   say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
   practical character."

      _F. Engels,
      Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,
      pages 19-24._

   Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The
   Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of
   humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most
   sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,
   of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an
   admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of
   this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became
   actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a
   committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,
   who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by
   the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the
   permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually
   presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a
   Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report
   on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary
   enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal
   speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and
   congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and
   country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining
   popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this
   time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,
   by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical
   and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man
   from his method, who were fully aware of his generous
   philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal
   advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The
   rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent
   contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,
   and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral
   responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new
   adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary
   Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his
   future society. …

      See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE
      COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.

   In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the
   constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the
   'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a
   temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen
   was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had
   encountered discouragements in the old world."

      _M. Kaufmann,
      Utopias,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. L. Sargant,
      Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy._

      _Anonymous
      Life of Robert Owen. _

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
   Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.

   During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a
   whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,
   designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England
   they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the
   Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in
   response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade
   combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was
   expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an
   instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The
   workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been
   formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through
   the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of
   the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy
   was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in
   labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers
   towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished
   luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who
   had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,
   became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The
   old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.
   … It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave
   the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and
   the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate
   consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of
   somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,
   and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began
   after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the
   employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier
   laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal
   with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed
   that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the
   opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But
   they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the
   Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of
   the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the
   recognition of combination had already done something to
   improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at
   least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted
   a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly
   avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,
   the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in
   framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things
   previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental
   point that a combination of working men was not in itself
   illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such
   a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825
   that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important
   position in which we find them at the beginning of the
   seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law
   might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …
   The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was
   in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one
   Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of
   criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took
   their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions
   generally.
{2937}
   In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade
   were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in
   Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences
   at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the
   suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had
   changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most
   searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which
   would, they declared, prove that they were in no way
   implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.
   The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful
   defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the
   positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the
   co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the
   Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the
   employers, especially the more influential of them, which
   marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …
   The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a
   most searching character, and their results are contained in
   eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and
   it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few
   Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further
   appeared that where no combination existed the relations
   between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the
   position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite
   desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation
   of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which
   was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of
   Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade
   Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that
   they register their rules, the same rights as were already
   enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier
   legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can
   sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can
   proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent
   conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of
   investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by
   that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the
   Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left
   to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have
   gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which
   amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action
   of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment
   as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the
   common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,
   indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction
   of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever
   heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very
   vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution
   of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act
   of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme
   penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists
   either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and
   Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims
   were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those
   of other citizens."

      _G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
      Social Peace,
      pages 86-102. _

      ALSO IN:
      _Le Comte de Paris,
      The Trades' Unions of England._

      _W. Trant,
      Trade Unions._

      _National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
      Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
   George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
   Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.

   The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a
   tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in
   1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation
   in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater
   freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw
   all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform
   and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all
   things in common; and to labor for the common good of the
   whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and
   encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But
   in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to
   live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages
   were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain
   number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a
   celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In
   1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania
   and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the
   Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new
   settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its
   turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark
   colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New
   Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to
   establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their
   well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a
   busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a
   brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these
   have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for
   its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering
   110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable
   for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own
   town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in
   saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at
   Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is
   reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 63-91._

   At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the
   Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking
   to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts
   of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread
   far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the
   commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons
   was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had
   increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.
   Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from
   New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the
   population also removed and scattered about the country. Those
   who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers
   and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate
   was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They
   sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their
   heirs and assigns have continued to do so."

      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 4._

{2938}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.
   The modern Co-operative movement in England.

   "The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the
   latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a
   co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey
   and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of
   industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish
   coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of
   Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.
   The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.
   Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the
   Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among
   the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century
   of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set
   up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English
   record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to
   establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,
   after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French
   revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous
   with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop
   of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy
   and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in
   Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count
   Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for
   many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far
   exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of
   persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in
   England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau
   testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the
   co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a
   despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen
   made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and
   the large amount of profit which he expended upon their
   personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of
   Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all
   visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing
   generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a
   co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and
   provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's
   families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for
   the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial
   purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in
   being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised
   abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to
   supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance
   of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in
   1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises
   and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical
   co-operative societies with economical objects gradually
   extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid
   generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that
   others might profit likewise according to their means. His
   remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they
   might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores
   now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and
   saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund
   with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from
   300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.
   There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of
   Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was
   the first which adopted the principle of giving the
   shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining
   profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of
   this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical
   effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted
   until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their
   own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of
   saving money for community purposes and establishing
   co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their
   members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.
   interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which
   there was little to be had in those days, and under the
   impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½
   per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,
   education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they
   not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of
   underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense
   and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their
   principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save
   their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught
   them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made
   no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and
   they taught the working classes around them, for the first
   time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of
   equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the
   'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation
   has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,
   Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and
   Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive
   improvements in the law which gave the stores legal
   protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,
   and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …
   The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now
   exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit
   annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a
   business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital
   of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at
   Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies
   devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and
   many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,
   which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the
   twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done
   business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working
   people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other
   countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in
   England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the
   Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of
   stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy
   excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some
   remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost
   prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.
   France has many distributive stores, and is likely to
   introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in
   industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system
   of co-operation."

{2939}

      _G. J. Holyoake,
      The Growth of Co-operation in England
      (Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887)._

   The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
   under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
   Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
   co-operative movement.

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism,
      pages 249-251._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. J. Holyoake,
      History of Co-operation in England._

      _G. J. Holyoake,
      History of the Rochdale Pioneers._

      _B. Jones,
      Co-operative Production._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
   Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.

   "Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
   was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
   the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
   he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
   nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
   in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
   he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
   his socialistic views, which he further developed in
   'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
   'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
   important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
   Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
   Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
   obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
   to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
   solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
   suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
   that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
   thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
   clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
   made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
   speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
   unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
   both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
   suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
   Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
   Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
   prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
   liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
   new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
   from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
   to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
   to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
   had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
   arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
   society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
   direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
   Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
   directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
   organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
   rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
   life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
   the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
   capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
   to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
   to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
   rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
   poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
   'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
   teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
   religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
   final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
   'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
   with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
   object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
   and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
   Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
   devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
   their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
   Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
   advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
   according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
   This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
   Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
   spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
   and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
   advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
   equality with man."

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      chapter 2._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
   Fourier and Fourierism.

   "Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
   MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
   Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
   Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
   Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
   ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
   Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
   given his views to the world, but it received no attention
   until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
   beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
   Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
   groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
   square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
   are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
   be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
   of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
   buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
   reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
   or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
   common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
   work in common more than is necessary under the existing
   system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
   private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
   division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
   sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
   the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
   operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
   of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
   of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
   Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
   may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
   of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
   useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
   work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
   generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
   the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
   need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
   discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
   Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
   is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
   long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
   and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
   intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
   regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
   But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
   compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
   perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
   vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
   opportunity of doing in the new community."

      _W. Graham,
      Socialism, New and Old,
      pages 98-100._

   Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
   disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
   Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
   been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
   doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
   continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
   founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
   of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
   increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
   Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
   cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
   immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
   assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
   presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
   Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
   established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
   those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
   circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
   regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
   principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
   newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
   social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
   of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
   now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
   toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
   Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
   Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
   other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
   existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
   Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
   Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
   series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
   separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
   published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
   active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
   realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
   In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
   'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
   of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
   pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
   disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
   new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
   their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
   followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
   Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
   society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
   less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
   leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
   establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
   time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
   In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
   appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
   who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
   work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
   extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
   He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
   'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
   but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
   to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
   the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
   propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
   existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
   most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
   … A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
   Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
   advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
   modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
   the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
   Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
   eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
   1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
   Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
   States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
   them. The first association in America to call itself a
   phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
   lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
   and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
   officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
   were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
   of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
   years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
   Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
   survived."

      _A. J. Booth,
      Fourier,
      (Fortnightly Review, December, 1872)._

   "Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
   'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
   (by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
   proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
   justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
   in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
   this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
   of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
   cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
   from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
   published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
   and household Association. Since then the subject has been
   considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
   been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
   destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
   means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
   paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
   vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
   a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
   the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
   the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
   generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
   Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
   still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
   fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
   vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
   Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
   Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
   these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
   improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
   establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
   enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
   hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
   will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
   rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
   four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
   dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
   only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
   last four years of its existence."

      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 40._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brisbane:
      Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
   Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
   The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
   of the present generation.

   "Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
   between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
   historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
   most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
   in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
   being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
   the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
   an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
   scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
   Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
   most important though far from his most voluminous work,
   published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
   scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
   Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
   Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
   imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
   indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
   for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
   he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
   Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
   wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
   which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
   Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
   showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
   Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
   '48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
   time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
   fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
   entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
   consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
   to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
   and died at Passy in 1865."

      _W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
      Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
      chapter 18._

   "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.
   In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
   of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
   intellectual development which that society has reached. …
   Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
   the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
   seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
   published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
   in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
   necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
   regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
   anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
   individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
   socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
   believed that if the state in all its departments were
   abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
   the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
   operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
   to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
   directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
   because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
   are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
   another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
   discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
   every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
   and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
   prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
   his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
   others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
   all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
   separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
   however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
   remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
   Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
   self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
   of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
   substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
   American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
   One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
   associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
   disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
   thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
   society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
   social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
   implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
   and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
{2942}
   They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
   'active individuals, working here and there all over the
   country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
   thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
   Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
   as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
   Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
   system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
   monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
   more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
   it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
   and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
   machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
   of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
   family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
   should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
   This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
   together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
   partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
   it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
   and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
   Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
   Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
   borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
   or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
   Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
   association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
   leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
   Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
   International in this country has been controlled wholly by
   the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
   which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
   Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
   of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
   an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
   classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
   possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
   with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
   all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
   ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
   they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
   or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
   that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
   buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
   these in their possession, and without the interposition of
   government, they will organize into associations or groups for
   the purpose of carrying on the work of society."

      _H. L. Osgood,
      Scientific Anarchism
      (Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889)._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Dubois,
      The Anarchist Peril._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
   Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.

   "St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
   the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
   of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
   besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
   beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
   imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
   in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
   forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
   once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
   extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
   Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
   workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
   necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
   capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
   as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
   for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
   including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
   capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
   destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
   constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
   co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
   voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
   motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
   up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
   workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
   to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
   these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
   in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
   compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
   beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
   to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
   industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
   competition, he wished competition to cease between the
   different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
   it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
   destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
   divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
   amongst the members of the association; the second to be
   devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
   infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
   on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
   labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
   Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
   receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
   would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
   they would only participate in the net surplus in the
   character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
   which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
   France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
   system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
   to establish a number of associations of working men by the
   aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
   expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
   every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
   hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
   workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
   founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
   distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
   refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
   which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
   associations of working men who received advances from the
   Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
   not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
   being able to start a few: after the second rising the
   Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
   which had failed by 1875."

      _W. Graham,
      Socialism, New and Old,
      chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note._

{2943}

   "In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
   after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
   francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
   associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
   alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
   distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
   accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
   were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
   associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
   of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
   associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
   there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
   associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
   others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
   been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
   one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
   remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      chapter 5, foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. Blanc,
      1848: Historical Revelations,
      chapters 5-9, and 19._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
   Icaria.

   In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
   the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
   very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
   and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
   social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
   into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
   February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
   promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
   for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
   others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
   reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
   their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
   finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
   do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
   had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
   there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
   were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
   making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
   with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
   community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
   were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
   gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
   Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
   fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
   "Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
   principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
   especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
   activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
   German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
   5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
   to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
   social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
   These families … are far from the condition of the happy
   Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
   they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
   remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
   found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
   November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
   and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
   after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
   themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
   St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
   the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
   community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
   title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
   were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
   a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
   Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
   through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
   secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
   settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
   Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
   another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.

      _A. Shaw,
      Icaria._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
   Brook Farm.

   On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
   were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
   bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
   Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
   these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
   Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
   the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
   literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
   lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
   found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
   Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
   each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
   the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
   article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
   themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
   any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
   capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
   per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
   article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
   receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
   instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
   Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
   were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
   A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
   Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
   "The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
   was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
   difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
   enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
   actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
   hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
   of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
   thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
   miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
   Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
   vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
   friends of the enterprise.
{2944}
   It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
   upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
   tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
   humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
   to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
   Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
   term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
   about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
   aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
   the 'religious' associations which had been established in
   generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
   arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
   afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
   being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
   enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
   no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
   into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
   thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
   listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
   church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
   communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
   (January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
   appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
   agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
   and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
   as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
   to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
   keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
   at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
   the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
   certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
   their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
   their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
   whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
   community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
   perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
   trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
   from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
   health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
   with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
   or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
   the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
   a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
   to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
   extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
   room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
   moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
   every species of industrial activity went on. In the
   afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
   teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
   evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
   of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
   the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
   and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
   in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
   otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
   cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
   financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
   the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
   first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
   the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
   "The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
   was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
   Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
   here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
   incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
   Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
   this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
   was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
   the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
   number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
   about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
   Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
   Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
   two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
   Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
   Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
   Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
   issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
   speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
   was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
   however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
   should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
   and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
   Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
   purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
   advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
   social experiments came to an end.

      _O. B. Frothingham,
      George Ripley,
      chapters 3-4._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
   Profit-sharing experiments.

   Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
   Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
   admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
   business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
   and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
   success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
   Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
   increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
   onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
   standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
   dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
   the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
   explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
   Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
   was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
   since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
   England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
   Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
   probably been an important reason for the small and slow
   increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
   of participation. …
{2945}
   In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
   industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
   and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
   general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
   entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
   the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
   by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
   followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
   then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
   at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
   1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
   Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
   of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
   instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
   [1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
   republics of France and the United States show the longest
   lists of profit sharing firms."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      Profit Sharing,
      chapter 9._

      See, also,
      SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
      The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
   Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
   "True Inspiration Congregations."

   In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
   belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
   Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
   century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
   in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
   followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
   the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
   thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
   leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
   instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
   messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
   Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
   doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
   only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
   together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
   remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
   sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
   Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
   was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
   their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
   common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
   thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
   women and children.

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 25-43._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
   Karl Marx.
   His theory of Capital.
   His socialistic influence.

   "The greatest and most influential name in the history of
   socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
   Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
   in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
   studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
   law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
   subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
   student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
   gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
   teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
   Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
   democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
   knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
   and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
   Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
   he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
   life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
   Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
   must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
   early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
   'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
   from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
   'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
   Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
   Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
   who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
   companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
   work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
   friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
   opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
   expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
   kind of forerunner of the International, had established
   itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
   of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
   with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
   Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
   of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
   resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
   Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
   of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
   revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
   nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
   the agitator, which in the International and other movements
   has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
   in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
   Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
   in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
   where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
   economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
   programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
   politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
   great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
   London, March 14, 1883."

      _T. Kirkup,
      A History of Socialism,
      chapter 7._

   "As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
   ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
   development in history, and sees in the progress of
   civilization merely the development of economic production,
   which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
   were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
   simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
   conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
   Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
   economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
   denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
   but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
   its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
   owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
   to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
   worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
   All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
   modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
   by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
   pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
   of church property. However, he does not hold the present
   capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
   capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
   profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
   wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
   receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
   that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
   industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
   production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
   capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
   invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
   energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
   sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
   buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
   a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
   as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
   laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
   the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
   increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
   all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
   theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
   is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
   from the laborer's share in his product."

      _J. Bourdeau,
      German Socialism
      (New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
      translated from Revue des Deux Mondes)._

   "The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
   industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
   doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
   labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
   the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
   go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
   number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
   actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
   which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
   per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
   support himself and to rear up an average family; but at
   present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
   the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
   and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
   the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
   in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
   works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
   the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
   sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
   for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
   concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
   tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
   remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
   raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
   again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
   increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
   the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
   is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
   at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
   lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
   of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
   expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
   exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
   laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
   carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
   the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
   of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
   production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
   districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
   the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
   society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
   proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
   or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
   state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
   granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
   be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
   and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
   system itself."

      _T. D. Woolsey,
      Communism and Socialism,
      pages 162-163._

      ALSO IN:
      _K. Marx,
      Capital._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
   The founding of the Oneida Community.

   The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
   followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
   native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
   state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
   New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
   for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
   such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
   were successfully established, and the community became
   prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
   community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
   there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
   to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
   scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
   early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
   of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
   Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.

      _C. Nordhoff,
      The Communistic Societies of the United States,
      pages 259-293._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Noyes,
      History of American Socialisms,
      chapter 46._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
   Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.

   "Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
   August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
   Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
   Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
   position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
   the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
   became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
   Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
   Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
   the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
   Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
   became also a member of the North German and German
   Reichstags.
{2947}
   For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
   movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
   and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
   'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
   compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
   from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
   29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
   co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
   development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
   he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
   principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
   no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
   weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
   Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
   agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
   works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
   Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
   zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
   einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
   Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
   (Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
   einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
   the application of the co-operative principle to other
   organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
   raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
   beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
   where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
   shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
   and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
   he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
   the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
   similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
   time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
   consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
   working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
   for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
   practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
   which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
   therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
   Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
   than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
   agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
   and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
   Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
   tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
   themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
   an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
   in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
   in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
   capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
   Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
   classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
   time the co-operative associations had a membership of
   200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
   or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
   loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
   fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
   established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
   Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
   Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
   prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
   the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
   rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 7._

   The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch
   plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The
   number of societies in this association increased from 171 in
   1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named
   date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,
   1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,
   1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,
   33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their
   own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed
   300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."

      _Science,
      September 9, 1887._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
   The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.

   "The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
   M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
   Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
   which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
   of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
   social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
   worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
   conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
   to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
   great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
   for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
   apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
   France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
   iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
   began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
   in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
   establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
   was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
   by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
   was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
   French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
   introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
   gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
   joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
   profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
   Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
   the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
   of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
   the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
   But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
   stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
   Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
   to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
   Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
   when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
   like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
   keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
   actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
   true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
   a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
   francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
   6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
   by various employees in October, 1887.
{2948}
   The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
   hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
   'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
   they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
   Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
   furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      Profit Sharing,
      pages 173-177._

   In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important
   of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for
   our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined
   into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive
   words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential
   advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be
   brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,
   1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a
   palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in
   September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully
   occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building
   was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.
   The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same
   time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace
   were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'
   school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths
   and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,
   finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its
   completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about
   900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its
   population therefore already assumes the proportion of a
   considerable village; while its style of construction would
   easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating
   with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central
   building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to
   1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the
   enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances
   made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …
   Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet
   social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin
   wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that
   the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I
   must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its
   foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains
   900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the
   most active intercourse and relations exist among all the
   inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict
   control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole
   life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual
   liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license
   simply by the influence of public opinion among its
   inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as
   a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.
   There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot
   and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of
   warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of
   anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants
   at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if
   it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of
   the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as
   there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating
   with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate
   to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours
   in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's
   actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important
   factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that
   the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the
   poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its
   isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of
   coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin
   and members of his family, the heads of departments and other
   persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably
   above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in
   the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the
   rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of
   height, and such slight differences in the height and width of
   doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,
   and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of
   the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the
   difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the
   number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables
   him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at
   his disposal."

      _E. V. Neale,
      Associated Homes._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Howland,
      The Social Palace at Guise, and
      The Familistère at Guise
      (Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
      and November, 1885)._

      _M. Godin,
      Social Solutions._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.
   Nihilism in Russia.

   "For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity
   between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a
   little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great
   distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the
   house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of
   philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most
   various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted
   Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West
   nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,
   contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her
   own native institutions in her own way; and there were at
   least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who
   were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But
   they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their
   host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw
   themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.
   Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously
   they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted
   nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages
   in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new
   pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his
   system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like
   Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from
   Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the
   army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles
   among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,
   where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their
   organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or
   Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the
   members of that school of thought, they had passed through
   precisely the same development.
{2949}
   Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the
   Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in
   which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system
   of society which would dispense with an authoritative
   government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the
   completion of Christianity and the realization of the
   Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of
   man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.
   Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was
   strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's
   discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The
   Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt
   in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and
   superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution
   which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and
   was really a practical anticipation of that very social system
   which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no
   small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that
   the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the
   social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,
   with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was
   obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to
   remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the
   great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty
   thousand complete little self-governing communities living on
   their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had
   been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the
   wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already
   raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political
   outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of
   1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of
   serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long
   gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the
   disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He
   saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his
   son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will
   find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy
   enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,
   relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave
   pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of
   State—judicial administration, local government, popular
   education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not
   among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this
   period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in
   London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),
   which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.
   … Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,
   became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before
   all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which
   was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This
   iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of
   Russian society at this period, and presently, under its
   influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism
   occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning
   and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in
   their description of it. The word was first employed by
   Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi
   Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his
   friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas
   Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,
   nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies
   a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects
   nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything
   from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that
   come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A
   nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no
   principle without examination, no matter what credit the
   principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have
   nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in
   nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'
   Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of
   nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most
   dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in
   everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not
   because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become
   convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because
   some author or another in Germany or England holds this or
   that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply
   Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their
   strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      chapter 9._

      See, also, NIHILISM.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
   Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
   Social Democratic Party in Germany.

   "There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
   later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
   character that has secured more completely the attention of
   its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
   way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
   sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
   two widely separated domains of German science and politics
   and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
   In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
   was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
   large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
   in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
   Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
   person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
   love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
   of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
   has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
   Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
   contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
   which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
   literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
   account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
   standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
   interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
   merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
   Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
   into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
   Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
   discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
   generally approaches a forsaken worship.
{2950}
   The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
   socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
   talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
   road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
   his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
   not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
   and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
   saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
   from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
   Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
   immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
   formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
   believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
   object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
   Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
   'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
   tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
   Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
   wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
   good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
   Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
   destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
   source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
   period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
   of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
   Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
   had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
   could to this arrangement."

      _L. J. Huff,
      Ferdinand Lassalle
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887)._

   "It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of
   the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the
   formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to
   his time, German laborers had been considered contented and
   peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party
   might be established in France or England, but that it was
   hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
   Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was
   able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them
   to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German
   working men's battalions, to use the social democratic
   expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the
   emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance
   materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from
   Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed
   their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
   to understand them, and this they never could have done
   without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages
   the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the
   laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably
   forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
   live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system
   and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were
   told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition
   of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
   be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers
   that government should aid them by the use of its credit to
   the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish
   co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of
   breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed
   measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so
   insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would
   solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
   necessary to have some definite party programme to insure
   success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social
   democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the
   event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the
   leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party
   called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine
   Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the
   fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated
   a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At
   the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,
   lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
   social-democratic party with political power. Although
   Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin
   in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of
   labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His
   influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to
   live."

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
      chapter 12._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.
   The International in Europe.

   The International came into being immediately after the
   holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At
   least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in
   its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862
   certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain
   newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'
   started the idea that it would be a good thing to send
   delegates from the French working men to the London
   Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'
   Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every
   way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of
   the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,
   they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual
   interests which bind the working men of both countries
   together; the old leaven of international discord would settle
   down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy
   fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International
   is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little
   foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.
   Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of
   the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by
   universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,
   and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of
   labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was
   facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed
   of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working
   men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle
   classes. At London the English working men gave the most
   cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of
   August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'
   at the Freemasons' Tavern. …
{2951}
   They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium
   for the interchange of ideas on questions of international
   trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here
   in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th
   of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all
   nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
   presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of
   France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,
   though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact
   which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the
   founder of the International. So far was this from being the
   case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.
   The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the
   statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal
   Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the
   following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,
   Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and
   afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They
   were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret
   society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped
   to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …
   Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly
   centralized organization, which would entrust the entire
   management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx
   carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed
   and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers
   seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first
   very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in
   1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was
   especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the
   International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its
   congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling
   factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in
   the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous
   Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.
   First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and
   most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The
   various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,
   and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of
   the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,
   to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the
   adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step
   into power and leave the working men as they were before. The
   majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in
   reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic
   direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,
   and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of
   the International, and the only political brain that it
   contained. But to keep in existence a vast association
   embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and
   influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make
   use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to
   escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently
   no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only
   man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of
   the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very
   essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the
   middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican
   institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter
   claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of
   capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is
   evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement
   which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any
   complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism
   thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.
   A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the
   International, namely, personal jealousies."

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      chapter 9._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
   Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
   in the United States.

   The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,
   or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the
   first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in
   November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers
   declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a
   "Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to
   advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following
   objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood
   among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of
   our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To
   foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To
   discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the
   fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality
   and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,
   working together, buying together, selling together, and in
   general acting together for our mutual protection and
   advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid
   litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …
   We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of
   monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and
   capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened
   statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but
   not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a
   proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as
   is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in
   our order."

      _R. T. Ely,
      The Labor Movement in America,
      chapter 3._

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

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
   The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.

   The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
   established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
   Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
   founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
   Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
   he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
   certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
   in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
   exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
   cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
   peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
   spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
   themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
   to a "new life."
{2952}
   The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
   surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
   apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
   the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
   who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
   of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
   with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
   with the society drew to it more attention than it might
   otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
   2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
   with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
   The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
   a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
   to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
   on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
   others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
   cultivated by other hands.

      _W. E. K.,
      Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891)._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. O. W. Oliphant,
      Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.
   The Knights of Labor.

   "The second great attempt [the first having been 'the
   International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as
   society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was
   the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This
   organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city
   of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.
   Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all
   garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the
   garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a
   trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate
   of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction
   prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to
   disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had
   quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization
   embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon
   education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use
   of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages
   system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of
   character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which
   enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,
   and feeling withal a strong affection for secret
   organizations, having been for many years connected with the
   Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all
   wage-workers together in one organization, where measures
   affecting the interests of all could be intelligently
   discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done
   in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'
   Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens
   invited the few members present to meet him, in order to
   discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid
   before his guests his plan of an organization, which he
   designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'
   It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder
   described what he considered a tendency toward large
   combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form
   of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak
   and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great
   controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that
   surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that
   nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret
   organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather
   inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its
   membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the
   present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December
   28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving
   obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates
   subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the
   ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new
   Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were
   sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was
   not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded
   physicians from the Order, because professional confidence
   might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The
   rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was
   repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,
   because the founders of the Order considered that their moral
   character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the
   new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional
   politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such
   secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in
   political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.
   Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the
   founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,
   career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and
   cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at
   the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,
   because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive
   of articles of use, but results in great suffering and
   immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell
   or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such
   persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of
   the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did
   not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual
   and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any
   change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then
   a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the
   name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,
   when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so
   far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general
   declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely
   secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd
   Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;
   but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the
   membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The
   membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into
   the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until
   five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy
   in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the
   obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a
   conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years
   1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …
   Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was
   brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement
   could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any
   kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against
   creeds.
{2953}
   The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of
   Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,
   disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there
   were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about
   thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The
   third annual session of the General Assembly was held at
   Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied
   itself with general legislation, and was called upon to
   consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.
   This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was
   accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand
   Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be
   five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of
   the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in
   September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this
   session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not
   worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session
   was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to
   deal with one of the most important actions in the history of
   the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and
   after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order
   should be made public. It also declared that women should be
   admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance
   law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was
   advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in
   September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the
   discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised
   constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as
   the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in
   strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for
   supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of
   members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of
   the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General
   Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and
   consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …
   This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the
   Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The
   membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,
   in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the
   eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and
   boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened
   at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted
   legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.
   The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported
   at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session
   of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in
   October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the
   Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,
   made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present
   membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been
   credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of
   nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the
   Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt
   in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),
   while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from
   various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,
   according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one
   million."

      _Carroll D. Wright,
      Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887)._

   "At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at
   Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman
   Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was
   succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first
   address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in
   addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong
   demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the
   currency."

      _Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;
      Record of Political Events._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.
   The International in America.

   By the order of the congress of the International held at the
   Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was
   transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then
   undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation
   of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to
   workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all
   international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'
   passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878
   drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these
   have strengthened the cause of American socialism through
   membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor
   Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in
   party organization and name since 1873, and national
   conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The
   name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark
   Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and
   extremists had become definite, and the latter held their
   congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The
   terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago
   Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use
   of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even
   if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for
   that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor
   Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in
   Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of
   motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg
   Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in
   these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly
   and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by
   all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and
   international action. Second, Establishment of a free society
   based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,
   Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
   productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.
   Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and
   equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all
   without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all
   public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous
   (independent} communes and associations, resting on a
   federalistic basis.'"

      _R. T. Ely,
      The Labor Movement in America,
      chapters 8-9._

{2954}

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
   Socialist parties in Germany.
   Their increasing strength.

   Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist
   associations. The first was called the 'General Association of
   German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).
   Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president
   the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its
   principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was
   the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die
   Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known
   deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its
   adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The
   first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed
   the intervention of the State in order to bring about a
   gradual transformation of society; the second, on the
   contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a
   revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a
   long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,
   from the difference of the aims they had in view than in
   consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,
   at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of
   the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische
   Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was
   nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was
   never complete, for as early as the month of August following
   a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German
   Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party
   does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now
   that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends
   representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the
   means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.
   This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,
   in order to pave the way for the solution of the social
   question, the creation of socialistic productive associations
   aided by the State, under the democratic control of the
   working people. These productive associations for manufacture
   and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large
   scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to
   arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct
   and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of
   age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct
   legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or
   war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of
   civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all
   laws restricting the right of association, the right of
   assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and
   free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;
   compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;
   and a declaration that religion is an object of private
   concern.'"

      _E. de Laveleye,
      The Socialism of To-day,
      introduction and chapter 1._

   "The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in
   strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,
   when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on
   the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
   democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the
   Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which
   gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed
   against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united
   the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all
   became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting
   individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for
   the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have
   held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of
   course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The
   first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This
   resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.
   The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
   expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,
   the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at
   Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It
   exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
   wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous
   congress."

      _R. T. Ely,
      French and German Socialism,
      chapter 14._

   At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
   Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
   single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
   a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
   to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
   The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
   socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
   of the Empire:
   In 1871 it was 101,927;
   1874, 351,670;
   1877, 493,447;
   1878, 437,438;
   1881, 311,961;
   1884, 549,000;
   1887, 774,128;
   1890, 1,427,000.

   The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these
   figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was
   natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.
   Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;
   hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police
   restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was
   not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to
   circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve
   years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,
   it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle
   [1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or
   pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had
   been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and
   300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."
   But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the
   strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it
   in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the
   nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual
   a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th
   September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has
   never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,
   with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional
   representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has
   carried only 37."

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      pages 33-34._

   The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest
   party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly
   1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …
   Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the
   fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the
   universities."

      _R. T. Ely,
      Socialism,
      page 59._

   "The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
   Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
   term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
   and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
   suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
   Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
   and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
{2955}
   He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
   is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
   He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
   for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
   all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
   classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
   in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
   true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
   politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
   Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
   at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
   Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
   without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
   even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
   'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
   admirer of England."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
      chapter 15._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
   Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
   The Single-Tax movement.

   The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous
   book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in
   his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and
   suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,
   the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity
   of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of
   wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more
   and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact
   that the land on which and from which all must live is made
   the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no
   possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their
   cause; we have seen that private property in land has no
   warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of
   natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social
   development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a
   slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose
   either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.
   The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the
   individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,
   possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let
   them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,
   and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the
   shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to
   confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor
   to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State
   should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the
   chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that
   might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery
   should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of
   extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.
   By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would
   probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in
   attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making
   use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,
   assert the common right to land by taking rent for public
   uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to
   make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
   What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign
   remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of
   capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give
   remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free
   scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and
   taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry
   civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
   taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal
   landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a
   single new function. In form, the ownership of land would
   remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and
   no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one
   could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,
   no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was
   held, would be really common property, and every member of the
   community would participate in the advantages of its
   ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land
   values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other
   taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by
   proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."

      _H. George,
      Progress and Poverty,
      book 8, chapter 2._

   "Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world
   with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only
   readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more
   remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually
   extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition
   of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are
   sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in
   its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it
   created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically
   circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.
   Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its
   saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held
   stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author
   was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a
   reformer of science and a renovator of society."

      _J. Rae,
      Contemporary Socialism,
      chapter 12._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
   State Socialistic measures of the German Government.

   "Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
   Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
   Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
   add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
   the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
   the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
   industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
   high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
   Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
   1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
   principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
   insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
   insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
   measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
   time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
   Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
   suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
   part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
   Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
   early speeches on the social question he regarded the
   pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
   desirable and inevitable. …
{2956}
   The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
   million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
   journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
   apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
   excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
   long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
   year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
   river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
   certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
   obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
   sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
   who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
   fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
   pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
   or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
   paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
   State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
   for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
   the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
   proportionate contributions as follows:

   Wages.                    | Contributions.
                             | Weekly.    | Yearly (47 weeks).
   1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)
   2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)
   3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)
   4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s.     ).

   Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay
   half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning
   of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of
   permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman
   has been insured for five years. The minimum period of
   contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years
   of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by
   illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by
   no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing
   his contributions, the period of his absence from work is
   reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are
   made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards
   supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the
   post-office monthly in advance."

      _W. H. Dawson,
      Bismarck and State Socialism,
      chapter 9._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.
   Development of the "New Trade Unionism."

   "The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism
   are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and
   rules of the Unions started within the last two or three
   years. In these respects they either conform to the experience
   of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older
   Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them
   differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,
   consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?
   Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and
   methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and
   principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,
   in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has
   been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at
   other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in
   various parts of the country; and in letters and articles
   which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public
   journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution
   of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,
   is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.
   Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project
   has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older
   Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been
   regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the
   recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September
   1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London
   delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection
   League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to
   carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass
   of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those
   sections of labour already organized, to provide means for
   communication and the interchange of information between all
   sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics
   as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is
   necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris
   Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by
   public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The
   mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the
   necessity for such an institution, in every industrial
   centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74
   voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The
   proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade
   Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in
   labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by
   the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing
   methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers
   adversely by throwing them out of employment, without
   compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons
   are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and
   pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that
   power should at once be granted to each municipality or County
   Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal
   control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,
   and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee
   to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all
   others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,
   and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of
   the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and
   they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.
   The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working
   to that end for over two years."

      _G. Howell,
      Trade Unionism, New and Old,
      chapter 8, part. 2._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
   Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
   and the Nationalist movement.

   "The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an
   ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],
   is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present
   condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward
   Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of
   the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts
   of the United States within the last twelve months. His
   romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their
   existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their
   declarations. …
{2957}
   The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is
   industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are
   no wars or government war powers. But the function has been
   assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every
   citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial
   army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal
   industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every
   citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual
   work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'
   is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of
   education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After
   forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still
   remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'
   There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this
   industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the
   Continental military service of the present day. Every new
   recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or
   common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what
   branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or
   with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek
   constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far
   as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades
   shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes
   for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in
   different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The
   principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,
   harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers
   themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial
   army of the nation is the most important function of the
   President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies
   through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,
   in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,
   colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The
   various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of
   which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the
   general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed
   through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …
   Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports
   of the President and the heads of departments at the end of
   their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must
   receive the assent of another, five years later, before going
   into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in
   the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.
   In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,
   therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are
   processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer
   of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the
   nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between
   individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he
   presents at a national distributing shop when in need of
   anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.
   The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not
   put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income
   as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on
   which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human
   being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,
   are entitled to the same share of the products of the national
   industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most
   capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not
   of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no
   one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the
   comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute
   equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of
   charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is
   dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to
   every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every
   person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation
   directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of
   course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as
   their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of
   individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that
   they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred
   to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.
   Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction
   that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that
   associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set
   forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the
   forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,
   a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in
   September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The
   Nationalist Club,' in the following December."

      _N. P. Gilman,
      "Nationalism" in the United States
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889)._

   The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the
   Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present
   form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give
   them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their
   principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a
   socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced
   the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,
   they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor
   of independent political action on the part of the
   wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for
   independent political action offered at the meeting of the
   American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."

      _R. T. Ely,
      Socialism,
      page 69._

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
   The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.

   In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
   the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
   stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
   their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
   during the previous year and because of its refusal to
   arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
   American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
   organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
   presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
   and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
   own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
   "boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
   handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
   Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
   26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
   traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
   United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
   the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
   and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
{2958}
   The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
   strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
   within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
   powers of the national courts and of the national executive
   were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
   ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
   The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
   arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
   Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
   determination of the Government to suppress a combination
   which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
   commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
   the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
   organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
   strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
   but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
   condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
   Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
   railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
   commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
   causes, but the report of the commission has not been
   published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
   The Coxey Movement.

   "A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of
   the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies
   of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington
   and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea
   seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up
   the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much
   needed in the country, the government should in the existing
   crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the
   employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He
   announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of
   Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on
   the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the
   unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March
   25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred
   men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through
   Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by
   the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds
   which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers
   of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers
   set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the
   detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but
   under an old District law was prevented by the police from
   entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,
   attempting to elude the police and address the assembled
   crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a
   misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,
   another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'
   headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,
   for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey
   force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.
   This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed
   themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of
   freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.
   Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though
   observing a degree of military discipline, the various
   'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in
   several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to
   the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,
   to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a
   band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,
   April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by
   simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were
   furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused
   absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council
   Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a
   train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,
   to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued
   on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at
   that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,
   at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some
   1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a
   stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a
   squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment
   of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days
   later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a
   band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Political Events, June, 1894._

   There were straggling movements, from different quarters of
   the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged
   through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling
   favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an
   ignominious end.

   ----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------

SOCIAL WAR:
   In the Athenian Confederacy.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

SOCIAL WAR:
   Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SOCIAL WAR:
   Of the Italians.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

   Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,
   has been incorporated in the more general article above.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

SOCIETY OF JESUS.

      See JESUITS.

SOCII, The.

   The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before
   the Roman franchise was extended to them.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

SOCMEN.

   Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to
   have been ceorls who were small landowners.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2)._

SOCRATES:
   As soldier and citizen.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;
      and GREECE: B. C. 406.

SOCRATES:
   As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.


SODALITATES.

   "There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for
   social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'
   and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations
   finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may
   assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political
   purposes."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 11._

      See, also, COLLEGIA.

{2959}

SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.

   In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the
   Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the
   neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers
   known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called
   Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the
   northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the
   point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the
   mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or
   and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish
   Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop
   of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as
   it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English
   possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SOGDIANA.

   "North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope
   of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.
   e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,
   but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the
   Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian
   inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the
   modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the
   Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the
   north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to
   Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were
   similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda
   (Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the
   Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the
   fourth century B. C."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

      See, also, BOKHARA.

SOGDIANA.
   Occupied by the Huns.

      See HUNS, THE WHITE.

SOHR, Battle of (1745).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

   ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS:
   Origin of the name.

      See BELGÆ.

SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.
   Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

SOISSONS: A. D. 486.
   The capital of Clovis.

      See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.

SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.
   One of the Merovingian capitals.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.
   Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.

   In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the
   reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then
   having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under
   his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by
   storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the
   destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it
   cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have
   shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery
   in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,
   young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,
   holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many
   in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against
   their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,
   who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,
   delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there
   is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by
   Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,
   strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,
   and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally
   ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the
   princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his
   departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."

      _Monstrelet,
      Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1)._

   ----------SOISSONS: Start--------

SOISSONS, Battle of (718).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

SOISSONS, Battle of (923).

   The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the
   overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in
   918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,
   grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the
   malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most
   desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at
   Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The
   Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was
   among the slain.

      _Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      volume 2, page 40._

SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

SOKEMANNI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.

SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

SOLES, Society of.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.

SOLIDUS, The.

   "The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of
   gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 32, foot-note._

SOLON, The Constitution of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594;
      also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SOLWAY-FRITH,
SOLWAY MOSS,
   The Battle of.

   See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.

SOLYMAN,
   Caliph, A. D. 715-717.

   Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.

   Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.

SOLYMI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

SOMA.
HAOMA.

   "It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant
   is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when
   properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to
   ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an
   exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has
   the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the
   juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question
   has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could
   have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it
   is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and
   that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used
   instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been
   identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is
   conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to
   have been the hop plant.

      _F. Max Müller,
      Biography of Words,
      appendix 3._

      See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.

{2960}

SOMASCINES, The.

   The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from
   the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded
   in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted
   themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,
   asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

SOMATOPHYLAX.

   "A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,
   as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for
   the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the
   body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed
   monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's
   person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of
   danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,
   so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was
   given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly
   leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."

      _S. Sharpe,
      History of Egypt,
      chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1)._

SOMERS, Lord,
   and the shaping of constitutional government in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.

SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

SOMNAUTH, The gates of.

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

SONCINO, Battle of (1431).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

SONDERBUND, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

SONOMA: A. D. 1846.
   The raising of the Bear Flag.

      See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.

SONS OF LIBERTY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.

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

SOPHENE, Kingdom of.

      See ARMENIA.

SOPHERIM.

      See SCRIBES.

SOPHI I.,
   Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.

   Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.

SOPHI, The.

      See MEGISTANES.

SORA, The School of.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SORABIANS, The.

   A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
   country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
   Charlemagne in 806.

      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 11._

SORBIODUNUM.

   A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site
   with Old Sarum of the present day.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

SORBONNE, The.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
      UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.

SORDONES, The.

   A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who
   inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2). _

SOTIATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SOUDAN, The.

      See SUDAN.

SOUFFRANCE, A.

   "The word is translated as a truce, but it means something
   very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more
   of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason
   why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:
   The wars of the time generally arose from questions of
   succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable
   to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give
   in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in
   the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future
   discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for
   centuries."

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 21 (volume 2)._

SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
      FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

   ----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------

SOUTH AFRICA:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

   South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and
   perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the
   Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically
   including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based
   upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct
   representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The
   aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the
   A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The
   more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,
   really represents but a small section of this great family,
   and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by
   strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All
   the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly
   hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never
   sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position
   the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its
   principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa
   or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the
   Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern
   division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they
   are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.
   The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,
   though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and
   with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most
   wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are
   the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain
   stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the
   Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of
   Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the
   outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin
   (men), have no material features in common with the great
   Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this
   presents some considerable points of difference. Their general
   type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown
   complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow
   forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,
   body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small
   hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots
   are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or
   Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and
   thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,
   settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;
   lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion
   of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 25._

      See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

{2961}

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
   Portuguese discovery.-
   Dutch possession.
   English acquisition.

   The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
   by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

   He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of
   Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.
   The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it
   by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by
   his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in
   truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …
   Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal
   Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the
   west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the
   Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our
   second South African colony, which bears the name which he
   then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because
   he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has
   stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.
   From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to
   have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be
   permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and
   first half of the next century as a port at which they could
   call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East
   Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to
   others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India
   Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to
   those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,
   visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took
   possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of
   these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made
   by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade
   out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was
   deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as
   a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and
   the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,
   but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first
   Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the
   new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus
   made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had
   in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going
   and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it
   was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority
   at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of
   Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch
   East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six
   years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first
   cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.
   In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a
   half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To
   control them and to defend the place there were but 113
   European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at
   once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,
   and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to
   retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much
   to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.
   Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still
   felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession
   "was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race
   of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name
   of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in
   their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to
   have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'
   'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …
   Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were
   forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then
   hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the
   way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to
   be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.
   They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and
   intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was
   driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the
   natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so
   much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This
   went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land
   from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent
   future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor
   and one of the native princes, by which the district of the
   Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal
   price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no
   further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by
   Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of
   those days did very much as the English have done since. … The
   Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow
   man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.
   But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied
   opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a
   pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a
   Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the
   population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is
   Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so
   mingled with other races as to have lost much of their
   identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the
   Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of
   the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual
   progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be
   called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always
   with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who
   managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served
   with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained
   an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came
   the English. In that year the French Republican troops had
   taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795
   (JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner
   of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an
   authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the
   Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the
   English forces.
{2962}
   On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at
   the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double
   emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have
   regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely
   puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the
   English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out
   as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took
   possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No
   doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way
   house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we
   should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it
   not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly
   unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy
   and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been
   going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens
   in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be
   restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English
   Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …
   But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war
   between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the
   necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this
   occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that
   time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall
   in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent
   with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the
   Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he
   did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and
   thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half
   of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."

      _A. Trollope,
      South Africa,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Greswell,
      Our South African Empire,
      volume 1, chapters 1-4._

      _R. Russell,
      Natal,
      part 2, chapters 1-3._

      _Sir B. Frere,
      Historical Sketch of South Africa
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,
      volumes 2 and 4). _

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
   The English and the Dutch Boers.
   The "Great Trek."
   Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
   and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
   The Boer War.

   The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a
   dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles
   of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic
   system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of
   Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it
   to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the
   Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas
   Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen
   exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in
   peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate
   the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed
   the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical
   notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of
   1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.
   The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony
   which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find
   in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,
   food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and
   of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own
   way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they
   wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,
   farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and
   independent; and the colonial Government was by no means
   willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had
   colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the
   boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government
   was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this
   emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their
   waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and
   their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the
   interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion
   [the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their
   promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'
   which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at
   Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.
   The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered
   the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as
   the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred
   to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus
   successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon
   them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that
   it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent
   Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no
   slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal
   ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.
   Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British
   rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was
   founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English
   Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,
   and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again
   there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange
   settlement was placed under British authority, while the
   leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,
   obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal
   Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the
   Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it
   back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,
   and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically
   unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was
   entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which
   the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of
   the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal
   Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the
   natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But
   in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the
   worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the
   Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that
   she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.
   Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the
   situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the
   condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires
   of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer
   nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the
   Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the
   territory of the British Crown.
{2963}
   As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,
   independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without
   the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they
   had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their
   race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after
   deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against
   the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a
   scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease
   with which this confederation might be accomplished was
   carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …
   Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to
   believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the
   English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.
   'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do
   anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military
   command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir
   Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in
   his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle
   Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the
   disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English
   encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in
   England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.
   Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and
   again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation
   of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were
   carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,
   it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should
   have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered
   by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism
   denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some
   time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but
   in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There
   were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As
   in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was
   slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the
   landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury
   officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which
   certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost
   attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it
   would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was
   brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff
   was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers
   pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They
   were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist
   them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,
   was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen
   Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful
   attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot
   affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …
   On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the
   affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at
   Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,
   established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend
   their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections
   aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of
   the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made
   to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an
   unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There
   were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …
   Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from
   Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had
   reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came
   rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have
   felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong
   enough to render a good account of any rebels who might
   attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his
   force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250
   men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'
   march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were
   marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and
   their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare
   of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst
   Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from
   among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel
   Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed
   despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be
   considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied
   simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he
   should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and
   firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be
   called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,
   had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every
   shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising
   ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,
   and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the
   officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly
   double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself
   badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all
   his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,
   who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his
   despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once
   the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for
   a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and
   Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought
   gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the
   Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their
   murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer
   after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring
   aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the
   British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops
   seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.
   But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir
   Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had
   met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to
   await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,
   February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of
   the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,
   which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.
   Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some
   desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer
   storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.
{2964}
   The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was
   poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was
   excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir
   George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if
   at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease
   firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by
   the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken
   prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon
   British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite
   obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General
   Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been
   negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before
   the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if
   there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter
   of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and
   concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called
   a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be
   re-established, with a British protectorate and a British
   Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the
   self-government for which they took up arms."

      _J. H. McCarthy,
      England under Gladstone,
      chapter 5. _

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Nixon,
      Complete Story of the Transvaal._

      _T. F. Carter,
      Narrative of the Boer War._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
   The Kafir wars.
   British absorption of Kafraria.

   "In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the
   depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the
   eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were
   driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military
   posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,
   broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove
   the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great
   Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs
   could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the
   second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force
   into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of
   territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For
   a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of
   the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the
   eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had
   done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British
   troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei
   river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the
   daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions
   of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on
   Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued
   extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to
   the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being
   then also declared over the territory extending from the
   latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at
   first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British
   Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in
   1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years
   subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along
   the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and
   destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was
   brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under
   the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the
   colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy
   the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its
   tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,
   and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British
   since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently
   large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the
   Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under
   the government of the Cape."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa
      (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 23._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
   Discovery of Diamonds.
   Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.

      See GRIQUAS.

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
   The Zulu War.

   "At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of
   Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were
   two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and
   the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the
   English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion
   consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there
   lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends
   frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.
   This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and
   1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the
   name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European
   inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which
   the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its
   territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most
   insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the
   persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which
   had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond
   the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,
   organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great
   standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.
   Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly
   relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of
   the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of
   natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a
   neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got
   into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon
   the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord
   Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South
   Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of
   the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he
   had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and
   energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle
   Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one
   who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.
   … The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon
   the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their
   native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance
   that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be
   at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir
   Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of
   bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement
   of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his
   suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in
   virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic
   annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act
   brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of
   Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.
{2965}
   Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of
   course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial
   Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were
   involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …
   In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most
   important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in
   their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to
   inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners
   arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …
   But before the Treaty could be carried out it required
   ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from
   his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he
   accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an
   opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In
   December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu
   Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand
   corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were
   unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military
   system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments
   approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a
   British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection
   of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for
   irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were
   thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given
   thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It
   proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for
   this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops
   which should have returned to England, and had applied to the
   Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to
   the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,
   the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of
   the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion
   was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first
   step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The
   troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped
   at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a
   bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,
   while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of
   the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who
   were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few
   Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp
   were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers
   and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the
   magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and
   hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious
   savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning
   from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter
   back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an
   immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was
   found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though
   only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,
   towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had
   occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But
   the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except
   by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war
   was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With
   extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled
   against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue
   till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was
   known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an
   army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion
   there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the
   fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong
   formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their
   assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at
   Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless
   assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered
   with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the
   English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh
   invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been
   made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were
   never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently
   accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would
   appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according
   to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an
   accident, and the two last great battles were the result of
   local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys
   came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,
   but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was
   fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then
   occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet
   Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a
   settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When
   this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen
   districts, each under a separate chief; the military system
   was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of
   arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which
   British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries
   against the will of the people was not however insisted on."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 4, pages 545-550._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
      History of the Zulu War._

      _A. Wilmot,
      History of the Zulu War._

      _C. J. Norris-Newman,
      In Zululand with the British._

      _C. Vijn,
      Cetswayo's Dutchman._

SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
   British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
   Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
   War with King Lobengula.

   "The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to
   trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of
   the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by
   Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The
   reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines
   contained in this territory, were well known. … Other
   travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most
   favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but
   of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau
   known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural
   operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in
   1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,
   and their reports all tended to show the desirability of
   taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was
   assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a
   protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was
   afraid. …
{2966}
   As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,
   and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into
   Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was
   more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese
   … had been electrified into activity by the events of the past
   two years. That the attention of the British Government was
   directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a
   protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,
   against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that
   country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then
   clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland
   could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded
   as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The
   British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that
   according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central
   Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective
   occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be
   admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,
   but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,
   Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the
   country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it
   out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused
   of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the
   end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a
   hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident
   that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the
   Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South
   African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and
   anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and
   the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on
   the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner
   in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly
   been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had
   great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it
   does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to
   persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing
   himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March
   1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her
   Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to
   inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February
   Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which
   secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her
   rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be
   expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the
   Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly
   established over the country attempts were made by large
   parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers
   as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the
   kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter
   against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful
   to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who
   gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the
   English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but
   even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and
   his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his
   warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they
   might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial
   period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty
   signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,
   the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the
   country was said to abound, especially in the east, in
   Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked
   upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,
   which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful
   diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British
   South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in
   recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the
   British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to 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.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any
   further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of
   State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the
   representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,
   obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the
   expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company
   was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations
   of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which
   had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a
   consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its
   functions were to administer the country and to work the
   concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for
   which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When
   the British South African Company was prepared to enter into
   active occupation of the territories which they were
   authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of
   Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the
   south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being
   prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on
   the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise
   a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide
   of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between
   England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern
   limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and
   the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was
   taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal
   or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new
   agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which
   Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would
   have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the
   previous year. The boundary between the British Company's
   territories was drawn farther east than in the previous
   treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in
   a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe
   River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The
   boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the
   junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes
   south-west to the north-east corner of the South African
   Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the
   slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to
   come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the
   British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards
   was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese
   sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the
   navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to
   all nations."

      _J S. Keltie,
      The Partition of Africa,
      chapter 18._

{2967}

   By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had
   fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.
   Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from
   the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in
   progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the
   Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated
   the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over
   the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the
   new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed
   impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The
   first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of
   the year the British were complete masters of the country, and
   Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,
   during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which
   the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one
   instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one
   of whom survived.

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

SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,
      and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

   ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------

SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
      SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
   The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
   The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

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

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
   The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
   The first settlement.

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

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
   Locke's Constitution and its failure.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
   The founding of Charleston.
   The growth of the Colony.

   The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:
   A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which
   is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This
   continued to be for some years the capital of the southern
   colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the
   disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be
   approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal
   command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the
   government literally following the people, who had in numbers
   anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government
   was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,
   admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the
   confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and
   Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already
   been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation
   was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30
   houses were built, though this number could have met the wants
   of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at
   the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to
   us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans
   could not have been less numerous: and the additions which
   they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven
   or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,
   were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and
   cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long
   time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of
   conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,
   encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of
   creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal
   incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign
   region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was
   conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that
   place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with
   foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to
   Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the
   revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …
   contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and
   provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her
   growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,
   from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river
   nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they
   gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a
   town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations
   and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,
   rising through the forest trees which surround it, still
   attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many
   of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes
   contributed to the growth and population of the new
   settlement."

      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 2, chapter 1._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
   Spanish attack from Florida.
   Indian and Negro Slavery.

   "About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
   establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
   the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
   than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
   with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
   territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
   foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
   the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
   For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
   over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
   the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
   where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
   them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
   brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
   which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
   existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
   injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
   of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
   order from the Proprietors. …
{2968}
   The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
   attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
   in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
   pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
   of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
   weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
   little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
   alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
   colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
   with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
   original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
   was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
   At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
   shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
   everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
   territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
   and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
   remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
   India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
   proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
   the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
   traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
   the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
   had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
   exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
   native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
   slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
   between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
   it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
   earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
   their savage neighbours."

      _J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,
      and the Carolinas,
      chapter 12._

   "Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was
   from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.
   … The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at
   an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able
   man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as
   Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to
   buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can
   never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied
   so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,
   the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the
   proportion of 22 to 12."

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
   Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
   North and South.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
   Prosperity of the colony.
   Attack on St. Augustine.
   French attack on Charleston.

   "At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon
   South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling
   for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the
   extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and
   here and there of noble families in England, had abundant
   leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in
   proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
   where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature
   convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,
   refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
   class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged
   bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the
   Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had
   gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position
   by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the
   scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of
   Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and
   thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be
   a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
   Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians
   march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard
   of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.
   Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to
   Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.
   Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid
   siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery
   for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
   it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared
   off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his
   own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on
   the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was
   planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war
   would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,
   the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a
   French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of
   Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although
   yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir
   Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that
   the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.

      _W. J. Rivers,
      The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 5, chapter 5)._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
   War with the Spaniards of Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

   "The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
   against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
   home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
   with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
   several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
   chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
   dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
   style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
   the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
   Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
   English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
   retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
   broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
   as security for peace and the future delivery of the
   murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
   confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
   Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
   of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
   apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
   gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
   having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
   fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
{2969}
   Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
   and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
   frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
   voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
   scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
   authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
   slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
   Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
   chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
   frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
   return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
   Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
   entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
   Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
   then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
   within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
   large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
   from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
   or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
   repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
   obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
   north. When this determination became known, the province was
   thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
   themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
   detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
   solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
   administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
   Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
   in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
   finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
   closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
   the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
   alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
   Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
   some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
   safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
   surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
   part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
   which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
   frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
   assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
   ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
   province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
   country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
   the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
   were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
   defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
   peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
   they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
   the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
   within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
   by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
   procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
   presently made."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 27 (volume 2). _

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ramsay,
      History of South Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 5, section 2. _

      _S. G. Drake,
      Aboriginal Races of North America,
      book 4, chapter 4._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act.
   The first Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
      and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   Action taken on the news.
   Ticonderoga.
   The siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
   Rapid progress of Revolution.
   Flight of the Royal Governor.

   In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina
   was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of
   Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second
   Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the
   non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At
   a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial
   Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,
   issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two
   regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.
   Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or
   interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in
   session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage
   large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with
   a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently
   summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to
   business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The
   Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting
   the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance
   was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],
   especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was
   used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,
   which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and
   brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to
   take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No
   resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the
   visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of
   war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of
   secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in
   the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.
   A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for
   fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon
   expelled."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapters 30-31 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. Ramsay,
      History of South Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 7, section 1._

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
   Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
   assumed, and a state constitution adopted.

   "On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
   Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
   to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
   American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
   kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
   exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
   permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
   regal authority.
{2970}
   The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
   of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
   public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
   the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
   Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
   The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
   toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
   criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
   public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
   imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
   so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
   system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
   organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
   officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
   Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
   of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
   was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
   palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
   ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
   Within five days after the convention received the act of
   parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
   capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
   hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
   asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
   all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
   British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
   violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
   South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
   president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
   Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
   opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
   exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
   the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
   declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
   abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
   and we owe no obedience to him.'"

      _G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 4, chapter 5._

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   The war in the North.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   The alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.
   State Constitution framed and adopted.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The war carried into the south.
   Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
   Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
      and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Siege and surrender of Charleston.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   British subjugation of the state.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
   Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
   The campaign in Virginia.
   Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
   Cession of Western land claims to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
   Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
   The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.
   The first railroad.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
   The plotting of the Rebellion.
   Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Beginning the War of Rebellion.
   The bombardment of Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
   Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
   islands by Union forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
      SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
   The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
   Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
   and assault on Fort Wagner.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
   Siege of Fort Wagner.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
   Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
   Sherman's march through the state.
   The burning of Columbia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional Government set up under
   President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.

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

{2971}

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.
   Reconstruction.

   "After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans
   were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the
   Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan
   [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was
   quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional
   plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive
   hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring
   bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of
   Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
   1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,
   January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil
   Government.' The previous registration of voters made in
   October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were
   whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a
   constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was
   71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801
   whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention
   34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted
   at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,
   1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being
   elected at the same time. At this election the registration
   was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,
   27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the
   approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State
   Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The
   Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern
   renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the
   white population of the State approves it, and not two per
   cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood
   what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took
   office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled
   on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9
   were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of
   Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were
   white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole
   Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.
   At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted
   to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)
   of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the
   funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including
   past-due and unpaid interest for three years."

      _W. Allen,
      Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
      chapter 1._

   "Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the
   Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited
   the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and
   his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent
   and instructive account of public affairs during that trying
   time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most
   significant of the striking features of this book is that he
   undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing
   the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of
   completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates
   as follows:

   1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
   2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
   freedmen.
   3. The railroad frauds.
   4. The election frauds.
   5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
   Bank of South Carolina.
   6. The census fraud.
   7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
   8. General and legislative corruption. …

   Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state
   finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South
   Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have
   hitherto had possession of the state government, there is
   nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is
   worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This
   reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the
   governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican
   nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's
   administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with
   his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as
   before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and
   wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the
   Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and
   acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton
   governor.

      _J. J. Hemphill,
      Reconstruction in South Carolina
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 4)._

   Generally, for an account of the measures connected with
   "Reconstruction,"

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

   ----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------

SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
   Admission to the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
      LEE'S FIRST INVASION.

SOUTH RIVER, The.

   The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
   River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
   occupation of the territory of New Netherland.

SOUTH SEA:
   The name and its application.

      See PACIFIC OCEAN.

SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.

   "The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
   Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
   to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
   debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
   The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
   sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
   wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
   creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
   Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
   by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
   merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
   Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
   eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
   many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
   nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
   gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
   other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
   of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
   approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
   Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
   negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
   sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
   by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
   very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
   Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
   war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
   continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
   corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
   and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
   competitor of the Bank of England."
{2972}
   At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
   government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
   object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
   irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
   term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
   £800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
   competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
   displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
   seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
   disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
   until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
   offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
   finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
   the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
   17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
   hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
   they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
   allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
   even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
   offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
   and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
   had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
   computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
   annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
   during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
   with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
   Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
   from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
   received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
   subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
   the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
   quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
   stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
   general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
   had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
   and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
   passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
   dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
   an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
   was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
   mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
   Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.

   The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
   were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
   were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
   number,
   'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
   Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
   Insurance of losses by servants;
   To make Salt-Water Fresh;
   For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
   For Building of Ships against Pirates;
   For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
   For improving of Malt Liquors;
   For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
   For extracting of Silver from Lead;
   For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
   and fine Metal;
   For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
   For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
   For trading in Human Hair;
   For flitting of Hogs;
   For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'

   But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking
   which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to
   pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one
   hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was
   the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same
   morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …
   When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it
   is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first
   check to the public infatuation was given by the same body
   whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained
   an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,
   against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but
   in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as
   distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their
   bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock
   began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,
   and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline
   progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France
   [of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see
   FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families
   were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were
   universal."

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 11 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Anderson,
      History and Chronological Deduction
      of the Origin of Commerce,
      volume 3, page 43, and after._

      _J. Toland,
      Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
      (Works, volume 1)._

      _C. Mackay,
      Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
      chapter 2._

SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.

   The organization of the so called Confederate States of
   America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to
   secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the
   Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of
   the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.

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

SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.

   A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the
   Emperor, Pedro I.

SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPAHIS.

   In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.
   1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military
   fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to
   those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian
   Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of
   his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render
   military service himself in person, but, if the value of his
   fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to
   furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of
   that sum."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapters 6 and 10._

   "The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of
   nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings
   of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal
   service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on
   them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was
   granted them."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of Servia,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, TIMAR.

{2973}

   ----------SPAIN: Start--------

SPAIN:
   Aboriginal Peoples.

   "Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,
   or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants
   crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The
   Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations
   of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few
   mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the
   peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.
   Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and
   established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing
   in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called
   Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the
   two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of
   Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians
   had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they
   thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,
   penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These
   original elements of the population were joined by colonists
   from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz
   and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the
   Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a
   Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium
   of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the
   character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the
   peninsula."

      _E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
      volume 1, page 372._

SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
   The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
   Beginning of Roman conquest.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
   Roman conquest.

   "The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the
   Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.
   218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures
   by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a
   dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania
   Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.
   At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but
   afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular
   authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two
   parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.
   167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the
   time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was
   originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro
   was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession
   of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The
   centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish
   peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary
   of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed
   at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°
   41' North latitude."

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

      See, also, CELTIBERIANS;
      LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.

SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
   Sertorius.

   Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the
   leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian
   Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against
   Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left
   Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is
   uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla
   had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain
   against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had
   thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the
   Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate
   Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in
   Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the
   Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the
   Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of
   the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,
   Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at
   bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the
   peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large
   number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who
   formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there
   which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the
   republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and
   a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent
   against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated
   defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome
   by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him
   and assassinated him, B. C. 72.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapters 31-33._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 7, chapter 62._

SPAIN: B. C. 49.
   Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.

      See ROME: B. C. 49.

SPAIN: B. C. 45.
   Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
   His victory at Munda.

      See ROME: B. C. 45.

SPAIN: 3d Century.
   Early Christianity.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).

SPAIN: A. D. 408.
   Under the usurper Constantine.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
   Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.

   From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
   barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
   away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
   its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
   October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
   tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
   Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
   historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
   passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
   contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
   followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
   exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
   Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
   cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
   the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
   fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
   without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
   of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
   devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
   inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
   people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
   only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
   barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
   the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
   fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
{2974}
   The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
   Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
   Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
   Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
   the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
   another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
   cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
   a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
   disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
   to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
   were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
   refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
   submit to the barbarian yoke.'"

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 31._

SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.
   First conquests of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

SPAIN: A. D. 428.
   Conquests of the Vandals.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 428.

SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.
   The Gothic kingdom.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.

SPAIN: A. D. 573.
   The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.

      See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.

SPAIN: A. D. 616.
   First expulsion of the Jews.

      See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
   Conquest by the Arab-Moors.

   The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the
   whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of
   boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine
   authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish
   peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated
   usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church
   and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without
   strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political
   disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and
   demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in
   fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of
   Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow
   strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to
   bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason
   of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed
   daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his
   country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish
   conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to
   be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in
   its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that
   no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance
   incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of
   North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn
   Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths
   held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They
   had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had
   practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they
   learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had
   brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The
   numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution
   and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.
   Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which
   Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at
   Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending
   the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that
   when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,
   Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to
   cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the
   command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn
   Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the
   30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic
   followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,
   Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name
   has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is
   also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,
   the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with
   but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the
   extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of
   12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he
   encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had
   levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the
   small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the
   single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or
   nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of
   the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of
   July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and
   success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among
   the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the
   scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was
   practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether
   slain or fled was never known, and the organization of
   resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success
   with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his
   superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he
   pushed them out in all directions to seize the important
   cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and
   Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews
   that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the
   Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,
   surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same
   spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's
   unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()
   and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid
   siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and
   splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more
   valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.
   Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless
   Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's
   first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,
   invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern
   parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing
   Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of
   Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in
   the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from
   the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,
   and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain,
      books 2-3 (volume 1)._

{2975}

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Condé,
      History of the Arabs in Spain,
      chapters 8-17 (volume 1)._

   For preceding events;

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.

SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
   The rally of the fugitive Christians.

   "The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic
   Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the
   skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.
   From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The
   very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of
   argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after
   battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to
   expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors
   had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence
   of which might have been the last rallying-point, was
   respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure
   and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no
   more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was
   the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the
   humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by
   the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all
   directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the
   first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken
   with them in their flight all the movable property they could
   carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the
   Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had
   hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;
   while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected
   in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,
   where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers
   and organization, and where they could find shelter and time
   for consultation as to the best manner of making head against
   the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by
   inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,
   and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the
   Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have
   found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history
   are so covered with myth that some historians even question
   his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the
   Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and
   began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight
   centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from
   the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible
   cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems
   suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In
   Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as
   long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle
   of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil
   of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the
   indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier
   combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of
   this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its
   first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its
   origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every
   Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings
   that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous
   Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,
   and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …
   Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With
   commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and
   slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously
   into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned
   by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new
   nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._

   "The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is
   supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a
   kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,
   and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but
   on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to
   the east other small states were growing up which developed
   into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of
   Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the
   Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet
   was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of
   castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of
   Leon."

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

   "The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign
   and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the
   Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of
   Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon
   penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old
   Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias
   since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]
   founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on
   the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign
   of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of
   Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its
   ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his
   court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of
   the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as
   separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of
   independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,
   perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title
   to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as
   the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.
   Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,
   always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."

      _E. McMurdo,
      History of Portugal,
      introduction, part 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.
   The Caliphate of Cordova.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:
      A. D. 756-1031.

SPAIN: A. D. 778.
   Charlemagne's conquests.

   The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
   party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
   Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
   frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
   acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
   great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
   Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
   garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
   At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
   the results of which are left uncertain.
{2976}
   It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
   from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
   incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
   the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
   and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
   in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
   Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
   assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
   would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
   their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
   independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
   and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
   without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
   the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
   The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
   The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
   rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
   of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
   unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
   uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
   death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
   escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
   forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
   well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
   brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
   ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
   royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
   the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
   renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
   fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
   this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
   profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
   alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
   songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
   generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
   Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
   the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
   centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
   of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
   verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
   mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
   which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
   this neglect."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 16, with foot-note. _

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 5._

      _G. P. R. James,
      History of Charlemagne,
      book 5._

      _J. O'Hagan,
      Song of Roland._

      _T. Bulfinch,
      Legends of Charlemagne._

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
      book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).
   Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.

      See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.

SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
   The rise of the kingdom of Castile.

   "Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century
   usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th
   century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards
   the close of the same century began to be called
   Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the
   defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of
   Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed
   towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the
   same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the
   former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same
   governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of
   the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest
   by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full
   century), not even the names are mentioned in the old
   chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,
   who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six
   years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,
   Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,
   perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as
   he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the
   sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's
   daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of
   Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of
   Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown
   with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new
   kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving
   Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.
   Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war
   with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in
   a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of
   Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of
   Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,
   also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,
   when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and
   Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,
   and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,
   when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who
   recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,
   and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo
   de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms
   were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and
   continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of
   Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the
   church of Rome has canonized.

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


{2976a}
{2976b}

[IMAGE:
SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY
EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.
EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.

DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA
RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER
FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

SPAIN IN 1035,
SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH
OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON
THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).

DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM
NAVARRE
CASTILE
ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA
FRANCE

THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE
OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.
NAVARRE.
LEON.
CASTILE.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.

SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
CASTILE AND LEON.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
GRANADA.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED
PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY.]

SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
   Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.

   "The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
   western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
   throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
   long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
   Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
   Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
   the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
   against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
   Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
   covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
   Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
   also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
   Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
   Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
   states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
   Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
   slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
   independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
{2977}
   The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
   acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
   and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
   ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
   the government of all Mohammedan Spain."

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

   "These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,
   and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of
   Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from
   Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction
   to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them
   in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the
   Almoravides."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
   The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.

   The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and
   Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of
   Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in
   acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a
   lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of
   Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his
   possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to
   1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took
   in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original
   Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and
   Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his
   momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the
   dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and
   the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these
   the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance
   of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests
   from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to
   the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the
   county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great
   growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees
   and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the
   overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who
   allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.
   1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at
   Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final
   arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,
   from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign
   superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent
   kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a
   faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History Geography of Europe,
      chapter 12, section 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. A. Dunham,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      book 3, section 2, chapter 4._

      See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.
   Domination of the Almoravides.

      See ALMORAVIDES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
   Separation of Portugal from Castile.
   Its erection into an independent kingdom.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
   Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the
   decisive battle of Tolosa.

   The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see
   ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the
   Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in
   Christendom, but was productive in the end of many
   opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In
   the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from
   Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to
   give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary
   indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.
   Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the
   Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades
   retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,
   which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.
   Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and
   the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under
   the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the
   fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed
   on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two
   great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of
   the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,
   and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."

      _H. Coppée,
      Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
   The old monarchical constitution.
   The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
   Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

      See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
   Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
   Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
   Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
   The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
   Castilian conquest of Cordova.

   Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of
   'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son
   Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter
   Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost
   always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her
   husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power
   ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time
   the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon
   his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but
   idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and
   educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the
   throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be
   acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to
   disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon
   [Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to
   the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his
   kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting
   the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst
   Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his
   succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order
   to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver
   her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he
   resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her
   hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she
   procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she
   presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town
   deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.
{2978}
   This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the
   most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the
   Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the
   laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from
   the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity
   was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for
   its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make
   you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The
   Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in
   proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could
   sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious
   uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the
   several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were
   ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where
   Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the
   kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and
   many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far
   more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and
   enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the
   contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in
   furtherance of their separate views. Under these
   circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the
   greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and
   subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his
   conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:
   and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his
   father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of
   Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las
   navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting
   himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.
   He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen
   of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.
   Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,
   became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance
   between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for
   being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of
   Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,
   and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore
   fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,
   preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with
   Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.
   He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and
   unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan
   enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the
   request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt
   neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings
   against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for
   the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,
   but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his
   return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying
   only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He
   introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of
   wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.
   Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated
   troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,
   the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been
   temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by
   his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his
   first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By
   negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged
   wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given
   her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of
   Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,
   and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward
   permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.
   renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time
   that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for
   sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu
   Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the
   general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,
   and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben
   Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed
   took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a
   few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated
   by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who
   succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben
   Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,
   which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the
   kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish
   domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish
   romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in
   Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his
   Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might
   probably have offered effective resistance to Christian
   conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still
   called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.
   The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and
   Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with
   independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the
   subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long
   the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other
   places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion
   by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the
   conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the
   territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by
   his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and
   submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal
   of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his
   Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."

      _M. M. Busk,
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
      Surnamed the Conqueror;
      translated by J. Forster._

SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
   The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
   The building of the Alhambra.

   "A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
   their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
   had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
   beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
   Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
   is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
   named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
   times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
   pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
   the fruit as its emblem.
{2979}
   The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
   Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
   fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
   elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
   of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
   them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
   never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
   Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
   from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
   The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
   tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
   of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
   temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
   belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
   little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
   Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
   was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
   but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
   Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
   cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
   should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
   the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
   mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
   secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
   one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
   cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
   AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
   for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
   cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
   modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
   carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
   farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
   wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
   sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
   were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
   the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
   itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
   crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
   from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
   The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
   increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
   Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
   existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
   several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
   the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
   outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
   red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
   Mohammed II. followed in his steps."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      The Alhambra._

      _J. C. Murphy,
      Arabian Antiquities of Spain._

SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
   The conquest of Seville.
   The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
   and their three successors in Castile.

   Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its
   schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared
   the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on
   the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King
   Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had
   become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay
   to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far
   as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation
   of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four
   centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now
   known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time
   with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,
   who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were
   cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,
   daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand
   was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it
   is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very
   wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he
   was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know
   more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not
   only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking
   a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.
   Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was
   really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very
   naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of
   Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …
   The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of
   one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the
   dignity.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.

   "Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died
   during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose
   about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes
   was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that
   Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to
   the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,
   grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of
   France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso
   "declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a
   war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,
   was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was
   reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors
   except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled
   his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,
   not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down
   maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his
   grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after
   them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho
   fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father
   revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and
   grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the
   king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and
   affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.
   Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He
   reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son
   was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the
   grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter
   was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the
   Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,
   especially through the unfortunate connection of the English
   Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.

      _E. E. and S. Hale,
      The Story of Spain,
      chapter 18._

{2980}

SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
   The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.

   The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or
   Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú
   Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's
   injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni
   Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to
   serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.
   He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then
   went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier
   troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon
   by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the
   Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested
   Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the
   Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back
   into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by
   a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …
   dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,
   Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by
   Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.
   Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the
   Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded
   in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged
   Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not
   without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,
   made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully
   defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled
   by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar
   from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was
   taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom
   Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his
   African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.
   Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,
   with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,
   encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and
   was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the
   Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman
   in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his
   throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled
   for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.
   And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the
   Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal
   power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to
   death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by
   difficulties, came to the strange determination to place
   himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King
   Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom
   his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The
   Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by
   putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless
   treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite
   brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by
   assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,
   from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and
   Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the
   Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on
   decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who
   surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'
   Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was
   already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A
   century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which
   Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and
   was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other
   strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were
   being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of
   Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and
   expel them."

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Condé,
      History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
      part 4, chapters 9-33._

SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
   Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
   It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.

SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
   Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
   the invasion of the English Black Prince.

   "Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
   had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
   the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
   step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
   the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
   pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
   plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
   of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
   Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
   Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
   eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
   had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
   Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
   enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
   France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
   captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
   and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
   promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
   "succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
   and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
   ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
   at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
   the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
   government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
   England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
   Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
   Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
   by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
   of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
   the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
   horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
   1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
   their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
   taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
   the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
   demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
   proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
   months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
   promises.
{2981}
   Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
   diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
   scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
   into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
   find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
   the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
   of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
   achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
   who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
   left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
   course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
   little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
   was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
   the scale against England."

      _C. H. Pearson,
      English History in the Fourteenth Century,
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Froissart,
      Chronicles
      (translated by Johnes),
      book 1, chapters 230-245._

      _P. Merimée,
      History of Peter the Cruel,
      volume 2, chapters 7-11._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
   Castile under the House of Trastamere.
   Discord and civil war.
   Triumph of Queen Isabella.
   The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
   Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.

   "A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession
   of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was
   hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,
   John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so
   unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in
   his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in
   comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara
   and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry
   II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his
   queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …
   of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse
   prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and
   in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.
   was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but
   for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility
   would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that
   prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile
   suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign
   than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with
   Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of
   Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external
   affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.
   They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one
   memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,
   1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting
   the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were
   unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the
   majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of
   conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and
   Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive
   territories in Castile, by the testament of their father
   Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent
   the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all
   ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro
   de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over
   his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons
   of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of
   this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,
   his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly
   yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments
   of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de
   Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates
   were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of
   Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in
   character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying
   in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,
   compared with any except that of his successor. If the father
   was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He
   had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as
   implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted
   for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer
   his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one
   Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her
   paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was
   formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an
   assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical
   pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates
   set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some
   duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The
   queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the
   enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his
   adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,
   after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered
   as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest
   with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the
   succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This
   arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of
   that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This
   marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian
   oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as
   Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he
   considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took
   the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of
   the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in
   favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the
   right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the
   common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of
   the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to
   whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders
   among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of
   Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence
   of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than
   all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband
   had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty
   equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been
   defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their
   inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively
   made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of
   Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two
   kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian
   descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who
   has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of
   John II. of Castile.
{2982}
   In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession
   to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was
   one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the
   contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the
   question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,
   three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in
   hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;
   and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced
   to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the
   throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that
   the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a
   strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no
   means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …
   Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's
   successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the
   history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of
   his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by
   his arms.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;

   Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the
   government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a
   brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the
   death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged
   during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as
   the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of
   Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was
   entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the
   title of king, and administration of government, during her
   life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer
   produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.
   Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,
   entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him
   in her testament not to assume the government without his
   father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince
   raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made
   prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly
   passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in
   Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open
   insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the
   Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered
   for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,
   after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in
   their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of
   Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was
   destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for
   kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a
   younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded
   his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.

      _H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 4 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 1, chapters 1-5._

      See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1458.
   Separation of the crown of Naples
   from those of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
   The last struggle of the Moors.
   Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.

   "The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,
   in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in
   Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand
   for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for
   you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians
   but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last
   proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums
   disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to
   the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the
   ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem
   surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000
   inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into
   slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he
   became more and more hated when he put four of the
   Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or
   Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole
   strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be
   relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don
   Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a
   sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from
   Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to
   street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the
   Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'
   which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden
   to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated
   by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had
   once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be
   kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'
   [Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it
   would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several
   times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the
   enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,
   carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was
   to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three
   chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she
   strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which
   Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out
   Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and
   this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest
   of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with
   the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from
   following up his success by the struggles of the women in his
   harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named
   Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but
   she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or
   the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on
   the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,
   who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,
   Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in
   Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that
   Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned
   Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the
   window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's
   women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out
   against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by
   Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood
   shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king
   was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;
   and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was
   obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd
   Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."

      _C. M. Yonge,
      The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,
      chapter 24._

{2983}

   "The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,
   Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four
   years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This
   was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between
   the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long
   after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the
   Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king
   released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he
   might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once
   besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the
   Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again
   released, after many difficulties he came into power. The
   Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In
   1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short
   distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many
   neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and
   taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of
   Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to
   represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife
   between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the
   latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for
   Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender
   to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in
   splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day
   to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated
   with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very
   different was the condition of things and very depressed the
   spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered
   population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,
   anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious
   representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the
   face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter
   denunciations of their king. When he had been released by
   Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when
   Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he
   would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to
   some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'
   had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him
   to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could
   appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war
   against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this
   was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,
   celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,
   crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies
   of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to
   the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish
   king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original
   site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details
   of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on
   the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between
   individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper
   guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to
   Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned
   from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It
   was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the
   26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles
   from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse
   and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …
   It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the
   place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in
   devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and
   capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a
   city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty
   and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an
   accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused
   great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the
   pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the
   place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors
   gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to
   capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great
   horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice
   was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."

      _H. Coppée,
      History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

   "After large discussion on both sides, the terms of
   capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of
   Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the
   free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights
   and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,
   under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general
   control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested
   in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be
   protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the
   right of disposing of it on their own account, and of
   migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with
   vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years
   to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than
   those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none
   whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah
   [Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the
   Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian
   crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the
   date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances
   in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of
   January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty
   assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed
   over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his
   kinsmen.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Irving,
      Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada._

SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
   The reorganization of the Hermandad,
   or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.

      See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.

SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
   Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
   Its horrible work.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPAIN: A. D. 1492.
   Expulsion of the Jews.

      See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.

{2984}

SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
   Discovery of America.
   First voyages, colonizations and conquests.

   See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1493.
   The Papal grant of the New World.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

SPAIN: A. D. 1495.
   Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope
   against Charles VIII. of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.

SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
   Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
   Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
   Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
   Insanity of Joanna.
   Death of Queen Isabella.
   Regency of Ferdinand.
   His second marriage and his death.
   Accession of Charles, the first of the
   Austro-Spanish dynasty.

   Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married
   in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor
   Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of
   Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this
   marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,
   February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to
   Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would
   one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.
   The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not
   long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder
   daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this
   event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.
   From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their
   entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …
   In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a
   numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their
   journey," passing through France and being royally entertained
   on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of
   fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly
   recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the
   crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The
   circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of
   the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in
   Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished
   on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,
   fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to
   hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social
   manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes
   than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.
   … Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous
   disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with
   mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few
   personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her
   husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable
   jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and
   cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,
   Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling
   through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis
   XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles
   with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never
   occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged
   in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided
   symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave
   birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she
   joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated
   by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in
   health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's
   unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the
   26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the
   crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"
   and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King
   Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in
   Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the
   absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son
   Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's
   death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had
   worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the
   accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The
   king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of
   administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the
   queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in
   January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of
   the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen
   and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then
   determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of
   Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender
   their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the
   realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to
   many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with
   Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his
   pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to
   Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by
   Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.
   To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a
   niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,
   and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in
   which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride
   and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of
   Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through
   his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself
   to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,
   known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the
   government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,
   and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing
   to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first
   attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,
   1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in
   June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement
   "by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to
   Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the
   grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues
   secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government
   into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place
   his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the
   Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a
   high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and
   revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court
   in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity
   excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked
   serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure
   them long.
{2985}
   But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a
   fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented
   widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional
   council of regency carried on the government until December.
   After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance
   than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when
   Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year
   past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate
   daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "
   Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of
   her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with
   that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never
   afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in
   any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the
   Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and
   far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."
   He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d
   of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession
   of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,
   thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of
   Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile
   during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of
   Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.
   In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,
   arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had
   been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not
   before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from
   the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her
   arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of
   himself as king.

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25._

      See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
   the partition of Naples.
   Their joint conquest.
   Their quarrel and war.
   The French expelled.
   The Spaniards in possession.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.
   Conquests on the Barbary coast.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai against Venice.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.
   Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
   Conquest of Navarre.
   Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.

      See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and
   colonization of Paraguay.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.
   The great dominion of Charles.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

SPAIN: A. D. 1517.
   The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
   Popular discontent.
   Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
   Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
   Absolutism of the crown established.

   Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of
   discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the
   Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently
   slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that
   circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him
   as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest
   dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish
   favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of
   honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that
   they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a
   sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While
   Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for
   rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her
   monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left
   vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of
   France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for
   this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon
   his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

   "Charles received the news of his election to the imperial
   throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring
   mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same
   satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their
   blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of
   German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the
   Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in
   a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from
   Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal
   Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon
   as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a
   free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,
   the indignation of the people became general and
   uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the
   citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in
   the next place, established a democratical form of government,
   composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,
   they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan
   de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of
   an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the
   populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,
   followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by
   Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,
   destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by
   fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train
   of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding
   the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to
   disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.

      _J. Bigland,
      History of Spain,
      volume 1, chapter 12._

   "In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
   met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
   Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
   concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
   the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
   illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
   him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
   person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
   displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
   Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
   kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
   could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
{2986}
   The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
   her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
   Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
   deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
   letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
   concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
   the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
   a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
   Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
   forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
   war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
   first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
   threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
   the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
   about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
   persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
   aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
   inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
   failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
   Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
   1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
   Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
   Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
   submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
   Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
   the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
   months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
   compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
   after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

   "The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed
   the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the
   Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they
   had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all
   share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the
   cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to
   furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had
   stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They
   gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering
   pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,
   assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing
   their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as
   absolute as that of Turkey."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 6, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Robertson,
      History of the Reign of Charles V.,
      book 3 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The conquest of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
   The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
   Bourbon against France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
   Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
   The imperial revenge.
   Capture and sack of Rome.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.

SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
   Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
   The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
   The Treaty of Madrid.
   Perfidy of Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.

SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
   Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,
   or Moriscoes, completed.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.
   Pizarro's conquest of Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.

SPAIN: A. D. 1535.
   Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
   Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
   Treaty of Crespy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SPAIN: A. D. 1541.
   Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556.
   Abdication of Charles.
   Accession of Philip II.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
   War with France and the Pope.
   Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
   Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
   Early measures of Philip II.
   His stupid and stifling despotism.
   His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
   His destruction of commerce and industry.
   His choice of Madrid for a capital.
   His building of the Escorial.

   "In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
   extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
   of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
   Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
   infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
   reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
   isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
   For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
   any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
   to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
   universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
   parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
   should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
   violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
   his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
   confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
   of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
   was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
   which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
   No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
   the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
   their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
   presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
   those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
   judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
   granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
   promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
   which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
   published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
   prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
   other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
   of the country. …
{2987}
   In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
   rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
   inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
   alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
   and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
   received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
   1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
   at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
   after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
   to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
   titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
   property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
   of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
   wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
   and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
   her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
   according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
   near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
   one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
   the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
   if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
   profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
   [1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
   preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
   the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
   and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
   insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
   one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
   common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
   having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
   with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
   stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
   of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."

      _C. Gayarré,
      Philip II. of Spain,
      chapter 4._

   "The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in
   pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great
   battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been
   rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered
   document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually
   made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king
   designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is
   intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on
   whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place
   was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was
   better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,
   or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography
   generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a
   religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to
   the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea
   in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme
   to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,
   after careful examination, he selected for the building, was
   among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New
   Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,
   the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years
   had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.
   This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the
   erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice
   ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable
   treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by
   the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite
   workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was
   despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works
   of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased
   to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was
   left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of
   the Guadarrama."

      _W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Philip II.,
      book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1560.
   Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.

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

SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
   Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
   Capture of Penon de Velez.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

SPAIN: A. D. 1565.
   The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida
   and occupation of the country.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.

SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
   Edict against the Moriscoes.
   Their rebellion and its suppression.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.
   The Revolt o the Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
   The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
   Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

SPAIN: . D. 1572.
   Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
   Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.
   Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,
   with Goletta, by the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.
   Piratical warfare of England.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1580.
   The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.
   and secured by force.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

SPAIN: A. D. 1585.
   Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.

SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.
   The expedition of the Armada, against England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.

SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
   Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
   Parma's deliverance of Paris.
   Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.

SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.
   War with France.
   The Peace of Vervins.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
   Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.

   "In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
   the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
   of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
   was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
   Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
   Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
   June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
   the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
   on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
{2988}
   The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
   with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
   Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
   here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
   world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
   sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
   wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
   Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
   had been sent, insisted on returning home."

      _M. Creighton,
      The Age of Elizabeth,
      book 7, chapter 3._

   "The results of this expedition were considerable, for the
   king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some
   millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent
   possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to
   exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the
   Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected
   —would have been far more profitable, at least to England."

      _J. L. Motley,
      History of the United Netherlands,
      chapter 32 (volume 3)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1598.
   Accession of Philip III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.
   The first century of decline and decay.

   "Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings
   [Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire
   under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and
   commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the
   Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of
   Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient
   to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and
   imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),
   Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this
   century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,
   hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,
   or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish
   empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,
   discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a
   bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …
   Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,
   and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied
   themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in
   Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless
   churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its
   worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its
   horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the
   population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the
   enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed
   Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more
   practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of
   manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and
   peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the
   profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and
   went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought
   themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all
   work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation
   with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious
   foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.
   Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the
   convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type
   of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,
   political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay
   pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no
   civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined
   from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to
   6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from
   hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,
   Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the
   lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary
   cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.
   Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an
   unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities
   begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to
   Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they
   were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money
   to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high
   officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;
   couriers charged with communications of the highest importance
   lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their
   journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and
   robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was
   unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the
   merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300
   ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,
   however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the
   income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip
   II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax
   upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to
   fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were
   absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of
   a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In
   the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic
   and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of
   aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who
   had gained complete possession of the industrial and
   manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without
   them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write
   without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.
   Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually
   transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into
   French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is
   said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from
   the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.
   In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any
   way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,
   trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy
   monopolize all economic and intellectual life."

      _J. A. Harrison,
      Spain,
      chapter 23._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Watson,
      History of the Reign of Philip III._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
      of Philip IV. and Charles II._

SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
   Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
   The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.

      See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.

SPAIN: A. D. 1619.
   Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand
   against Frederick of Bohemia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
   Accession of Philip IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
   Renewal of war in the Netherlands.
   End of the truce.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

{2989}

SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
   Hostile policy of Richelieu.
   The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.
   War with France in Northern Italy over the
   succession to the duchy of Mantua.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635.
   New hostile alliances of France.
   Declaration of war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
   The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
   His invasion of France.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.
   The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
   The war on the French frontier.
   Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
   French invasion of Roussillon.
   Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.

   In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees
   under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral
   of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and
   was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke
   d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There
   was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,
   on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,
   replied that could not be said of any place which contained
   the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege
   to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from
   the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,
   with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of
   war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:
   Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had
   expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious
   inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …
   proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under
   Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on
   entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a
   month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de
   Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from
   its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.
   "In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,
   attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as
   the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,
   amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,
   under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the
   great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the
   frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is
   situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A
   formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on
   the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,
   after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the
   Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia
   being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the
   kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly
   improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly
   until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the
   Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter
   ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,
   "while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were
   totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their
   intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a
   still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the
   Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to
   Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the
   invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,
   on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again
   entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish
   frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had
   hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies
   on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range
   of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,
   and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,
   divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these
   hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of
   Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain
   on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was
   invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty
   days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for
   the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so
   peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon
   the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,
   1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it
   proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in
   the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those
   arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,
   may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent
   intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French
   soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst
   forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection
   at Barcelona."

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
      Philip IV. and Charles II.,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Wright,
      History of France,
      volume 1, chapter 17._

SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.
   War with the piratical Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
   Revolution in Portugal
   That country resumes its independence.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
   Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
   French conquest of Roussillon.

   After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the
   Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in
   Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip
   6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their
   proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states
   to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian
   troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the
   Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without
   enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps
   Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and
   annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the
   various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every
   sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up
   to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their
   dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,
   and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and
   rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to
   obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate
   with the king and his minister.
{2990}
   These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an
   insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and
   inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.
   These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh
   outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited
   popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general
   insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was
   slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered
   into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The
   courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh
   misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly
   directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more
   especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression
   of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are
   always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The
   Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the
   Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,
   who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and
   called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which
   they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off
   the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been
   preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more
   than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no
   great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the
   marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent
   against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the
   minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous
   cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The
   town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the
   people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,
   and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring
   crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct
   roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with
   France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu
   chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French
   crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for
   ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was
   immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to
   Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had
   shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with
   the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army
   as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,
   than it really was; and the French officers were in
   consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia
   which was to support them, and still more disappointed when
   they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last
   resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,
   D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the
   advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,
   in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately
   besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and
   ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he
   agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops
   which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he
   executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on
   the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from
   Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the
   enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is
   probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once
   have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in
   part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of
   peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as
   advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of
   resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the
   French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more
   experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the
   Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to
   Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were
   defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became
   better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and
   though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and
   saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general
   result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At
   the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;
   and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that
   small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it
   from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been
   taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country
   were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of
   France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry
   of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq
   Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of
   the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance
   they demanded.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

   The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of
   some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came
   rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu
   still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his
   adversaries."

      _G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 2: Olivarez._

SPAIN: A. D. 1643.
   Invasion of France from the Netherlands.
   Defeat at Rocroi.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.

SPAIN: A. D, 1644-1646.
   The war in Catalonia.
   Sieges of Lerida.

   In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
   of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
   the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
   of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
   Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
   strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
   command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
   that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
   heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
   he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
   but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
   attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
   men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
   Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
   accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
   end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
   the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
   … the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
   the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
   disasters of the former general."
{2991}
   Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
   strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
   principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
   surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
   after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
   encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
   Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
   of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
   called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
   insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
   the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
   Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
   whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
   he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
   him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
   lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
   be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
   Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
   that province, while a considerable part of the army of
   Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
   to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
   pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
   of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
   with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
   a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
   siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.

      _G. P. R. James,
      Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.
   French successes in Flanders.
   Loss of Dunkirk.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
   Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
   The defeat at Lens.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
   The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
   Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648.
   Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
   Subjugation of Catalonia.

   "During the four years which [in France] had been filled with
   the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with
   success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In
   1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had
   endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was
   possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish
   besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to
   capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and
   constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was
   again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful
   there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been
   expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He
   succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and
   defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have
   been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The
   inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want
   caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to
   Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,
   but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions
   were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not
   in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he
   retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and
   those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without
   success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,
   Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate
   was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He
   intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had
   reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no
   more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of
   Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and
   became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of
   Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of
   Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he
   excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies
   of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might
   have been saved for France and have remained a part of that
   kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was
   lost. This great and important province would have been a
   valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population
   would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have
   added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the
   Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot
   should thus have been determined. They were not closely
   related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left
   to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of
   having an opportunity for development in intelligence and
   prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 15 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
   Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
   Defeat at Rethel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
   Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
   Invasion of France.
   Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
   War with England in alliance with France.
   Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
   The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
   Territorial cessions to France.
   Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

SPAIN: A. D. 1665.
   Accession of Charles II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
   Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
   The War of the Queen's Rights.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
   Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
   Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

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

SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
   Peace with Portugal.
   Recognition of its independence.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.
   The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
      also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1686.
   The League of Augsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

{2992}

SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.
   The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance
   against Louis XIV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

SPAIN: A. D. 1697.
   The Peace of Ryswick.
   French conquests restored.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
   The question of the Succession.
   The Treaties of Partition.
   The will of Charles ll.

   As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,
   Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and
   evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part
   of his internal administration, and in all his domestic
   relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so
   completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of
   age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even
   more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were
   aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not
   improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.
   Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's
   eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,
   therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded
   to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her
   espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of
   her posterity, all claim to the succession.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

   This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the
   Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife
   of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage
   renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had
   not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore
   considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of
   this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of
   Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim
   to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a
   daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to
   Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his
   mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly
   very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary
   rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a
   contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the
   Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the
   contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only
   party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be
   produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the
   weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would
   be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the
   Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes
   offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;
   the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in
   favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of
   Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the
   question of the succession without consulting either Charles
   or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties
   to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it
   was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should
   succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The
   Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and
   the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of
   the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the
   dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this
   end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was
   accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the
   Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed
   when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and
   presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of
   Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.
   It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,
   should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this
   great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was
   agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent
   in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the
   province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed
   the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.
   Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of
   rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his
   runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his
   old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and
   inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.
   … When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived
   at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler
   of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of
   London was directed to remonstrate with the government of
   William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was
   commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing
   the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the
   chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the
   whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,
   and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those
   powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was
   at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully
   availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the
   advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king
   died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,
   bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of
   Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as
   the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.
   With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the
   obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his
   grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign
   hastened to take possession of his dominions."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV,
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 4._

      _J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 6-10._

      _J. Dunlop,
      Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      volume 1, introduction, section 3._

SPAIN: A. D. 1700.
   Accession of Philip V.

{2993}

SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
   The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.

   "Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
   entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
   European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
   Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
   V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
   treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
   political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
   that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
   management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
   grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
   raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
   the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
   of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
   supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
   letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
   departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
   the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
   see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
   Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
   against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
   equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
   Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
   point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
   to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
   the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
   consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
   Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
   Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
   quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
   stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
   circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
   rouse the States-General against France. He found some
   difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
   his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
   mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
   James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
   Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
   as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
   any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
   France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
   was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
   Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
   the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
   engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
   duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
   ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
   Spain."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 25 (volume 5)._

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapter 9 (volume 1)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 1-7._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.

SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
   The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
   The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.

   The first approach to Spain of the War of the
   Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the
   Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against
   Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and
   Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition
   against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.
   But had King William lived he would certainly not have
   selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,
   endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the
   skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under
   him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar
   a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000
   men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.
   Their proceedings have been related at full length in another
   history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession
   in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the
   first days of September—how even before they landed angry
   dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,
   the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which
   Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the
   enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.
   Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month
   it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of
   war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their
   return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to
   recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons
   from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly
   voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to
   unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they
   had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.
   On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds
   amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted
   by some French frigates, which were the escort of the
   galleons, had expected an attack and made the best
   preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the
   treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order
   from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the
   neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;
   they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and
   they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these
   means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;
   Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the
   ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of
   the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French
   and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large
   amount of booty to the victors."

      _Earl Stanhope,
      History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 3-4._

   For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other
   quarters.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.

SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
   The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
   The English take Gibraltar.

   "The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.
   by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the
   Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in
   persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who
   was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between
   the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of
   Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a
   perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the
   States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the
   English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated
   commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after
   himself.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.

{2994}

   It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two
   Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British
   cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third
   less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the
   Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.
   Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a
   reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to
   drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an
   Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his
   eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the
   throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's
   second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was
   proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The
   new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the
   assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of
   Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked
   for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to
   Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,
   February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,
   together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed
   in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that
   side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that
   the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,
   penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were
   driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under
   Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made
   an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for
   their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The
   importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was
   not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been
   neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English
   sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the
   eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,
   scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same
   time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of
   this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August
   4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles
   III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen
   of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of
   Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,
   and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis
   of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court
   afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and
   the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of
   the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French
   blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally
   compelled the raising of the siege."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Burton,
      History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _F. Sayer,
      History of Gibraltar,
      chapters 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1704.
   The War of the Succession: Blenheim.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
   The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.

   As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great
   warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the
   caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,
   earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to
   Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary
   character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not
   excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He
   sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of
   5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a
   divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,
   Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the
   arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he
   received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same
   number of recruits which he had brought from England. The
   prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince
   and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough
   opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the
   reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular
   siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the
   fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near
   Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the
   cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the
   surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of
   Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this
   reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the
   capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers
   of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid
   with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,
   but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops
   were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three
   weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men
   of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of
   Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers
   said their troops should not join in an enterprise so
   manifestly impossible of success for a small force.
   Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all
   the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built
   on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded
   the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the
   siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made
   every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot
   soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the
   evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of
   Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all
   night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were
   under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.
   Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered
   at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to
   repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,
   leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain
   the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,
   and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The
   citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by
   a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded
   from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this
   extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the
   surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in
   which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,
   was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns
   of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful
   success by other daring operations. The German ministers and
   the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,
   notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save
   Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king
   Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which
   Peterborough had accomplished for him."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 38._

{2995}

   The above is substantially, in brief, the account of
   Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of
   the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew
   the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,
   called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The
   story has been recently told, however, in a very different way
   and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who
   declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.
   Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be
   a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are
   included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.
   Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter
   thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,
   and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a
   note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged
   Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the
   interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric
   of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.
   According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but
   Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on
   Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled
   to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been
   laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the
   memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been
   aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the
   present century."

      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Warburton,
      Memoir of Peterborough,
      chapters 7-11 (volume 1)._

      _F. S. Russell,
      The Earl of Peterborough,
      volume 1, chapters 7-9._

SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
   The War of the Succession:
   Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.

   "The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed
   by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding
   country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,
   nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of
   Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of
   Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared
   before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by
   sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable
   danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched
   with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so
   small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a
   Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission
   from the British government gave him supreme power, not only
   over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,
   over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open
   boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was
   picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships
   of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he
   announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with
   his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few
   hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet
   would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put
   out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the
   following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to
   Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which
   he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been
   some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of
   separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At
   Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to
   remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained
   on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the
   sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of
   Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and
   Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the
   capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to
   remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time
   the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed
   the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,
   ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example
   of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The
   governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his
   trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the
   last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the
   struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that
   nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the
   dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were
   ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.
   There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun
   as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more
   difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than
   the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an
   invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she
   puts forth when her regular military resistance has been
   beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance
   to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the
   spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,
   rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the
   Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No
   soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the
   invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the
   country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and
   which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms
   behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.
   In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow
   rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the
   Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the
   Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their
   mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers
   indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of
   them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in
   Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march
   from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with
   Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.
{2996}
   The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite
   city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading
   Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get
   some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,
   not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke
   advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.
   But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to
   evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was
   collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly
   inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed
   a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was
   rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and
   vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity
   of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony
   with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the
   Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,
   Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …
   From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of
   fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had
   placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of
   Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that
   province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the
   enemy."

      _Lord Macaulay,
      Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._

   In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of
   Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat
   on the French and rescued Turin.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.

      ALSO IN:
      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapters 5-6._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapter 14 (volume 1)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
   The War of the Succession:
   The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.

   "The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After
   some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of
   Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,
   wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected
   from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,
   the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl
   of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the
   Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy
   numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the
   Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat
   superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the
   cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and
   Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot
   showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than
   the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still
   greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean
   Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a
   French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each
   other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.
   Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three
   Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing
   themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they
   surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt
   [Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly
   10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were
   purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only
   about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at
   Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,
   were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the
   army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,
   which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The
   generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks
   of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole
   kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or
   four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of
   the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that
   was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered
   Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick
   joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on
   the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of
   Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,
   and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida
   surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan
   mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the
   Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States
   of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October
   4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the
   enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the
   hearts of the French armies."

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
      (translated by M. L. Booth),
      volume 2, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 23-26._

      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapter 7._

SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
   The War of the Succession:
   Bourbon reverses and final triumph.

   "In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
   Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
   Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
   still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
   filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
   of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
   emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
   Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
   distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
   English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
   Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
   dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
   supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
   siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
   Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
   gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
   the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
   impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
   letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
   retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
   ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
   without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
   corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
   fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
   Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
   the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
   Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
   pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
   Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
   he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
{2997}
   The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
   than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
   abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
   have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
   American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
   peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
   victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
   the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
   Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
   America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
   rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
   roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
   arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
   general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
   recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
   with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
   battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
   he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
   disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
   English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
   9, 1710], was taken prisoner."

      _M. Callcott,
      Short History of Spain,
      chapter 22 (volume 2)._

   "As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa
   and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or
   wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst
   the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and
   100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations
   constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less
   than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had
   re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."

      _Colonel A. Parnell,
      The War of the Succession in Spain,
      chapters 27-34._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2)._

      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of the War of Succession in Spain,
      chapters 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1711.
   The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
   The betrayal of the Catalans.

   "Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to
   regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with
   a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the
   death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were
   passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had
   been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again
   and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again
   and again received from her ministers and generals the most
   solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When
   England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she
   might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making
   their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,
   instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising
   the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple
   prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the
   convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the
   Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was
   referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King
   promising at that time to interpose their good offices to
   secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the
   strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily
   obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an
   acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud
   and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,
   repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these
   privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported
   by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The
   English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the
   Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they
   should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which
   gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a
   direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of
   their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally
   silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to
   enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,
   abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused
   to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to
   the indignation of the English Government, they still
   continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against
   overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the
   Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a
   squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their
   obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and
   of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually
   despatched, which would probably have been employed against
   Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,
   and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the
   scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was
   more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with
   the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices
   in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan
   liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of
   Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more
   than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the
   Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the
   hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the
   city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till
   seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging
   army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been
   added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,
   Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place
   in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards
   imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia
   were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this
   disastrous war."

      _W. E. R. Lecky,
      History of England, 18th century,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _C. T. Wilson,
      The Duke of Berwick,
      chapter 21._

{2998}

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
   Continued war with the Emperor.
   The Triple Alliance.
   The Quadruple Alliance.
   The Peace of Vienna.
   The Alliance of Hanover.

   "The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great
   part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it
   had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two
   principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor
   Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King
   of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,
   Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to
   acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which
   the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.
   To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish
   minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of
   France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as
   being the power most particularly interested in maintaining
   the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had
   been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United
   Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January
   4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least
   disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design
   of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the
   Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked
   Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest
   was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from
   the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the
   infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,
   immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,
   1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan
   of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King
   of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to
   obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,
   and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The
   Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to
   acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in
   consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy
   and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the
   quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy
   was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,
   which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion
   to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.
   That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of
   Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and
   investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as
   the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as
   fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of
   the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who
   were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate
   to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it
   was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his
   refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The
   French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under
   Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and
   the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the
   resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple
   alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,
   the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.
   The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when
   the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,
   Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at
   an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.
   The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to
   the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor
   provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by
   chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive
   privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the
   coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long
   retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave
   mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his
   daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King
   Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The
   final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—
   the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a
   treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.
   "This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the
   provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the
   Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of
   the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand
   duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause
   contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain
   undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
   Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the
   succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account
   that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The
   peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance
   between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the
   alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her
   hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,
   besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the
   latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting
   that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near
   Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the
   Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two
   alliances."

      _C. W. Koch,
      The Revolutions of Europe, period 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      volume 1, chapters 7-10._

      _G. P. R. James,
      Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
      volume 4: Alberoni._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 22-30._

      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
      chapters 2-10._

SPAIN: A. D. 1714.
   The Peace of Utrecht.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
   The Austrian Succession.
   Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.

SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
   Fresh quarrels with England.
   Siege of Gibraltar.
   Treaty of Seville.
   Second Treaty of Vienna.
   Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.

   "All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and
   Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties
   were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for
   war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of
   Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were
   published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea
   was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under
   Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February
   1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at
   Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the
   English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led
   to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain
   alone had any real desire for war. …
{2999}
   The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at
   Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,
   Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to
   assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But
   Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to
   temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the
   death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with
   the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a
   port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass
   over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon
   dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne
   and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth
   Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the
   dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might
   frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian
   duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political
   influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries
   by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now
   opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for
   the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of
   that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except
   the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian
   duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the
   end they "became a mere farce, and the various
   plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.
   Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having
   dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the
   French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more
   warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding
   all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she
   at length determined to accept what they offered. … She
   persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France
   and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th
   1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other
   differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian
   duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto
   Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000
   Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil
   government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,
   indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering
   that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed
   across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus
   completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The
   Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its
   execution, on the understanding that they should receive
   entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established
   by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being
   thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke
   of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of
   that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,
   however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at
   a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,
   wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out
   the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in
   a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that
   treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in
   concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of
   France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which
   were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to
   accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was
   concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.
   Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic
   Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the
   provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and
   agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands
   with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He
   also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,
   or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power
   in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron
   disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of
   that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in
   the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir
   of Tuscany."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapters 14-15 (volume 2)._

      _W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 88 (volume 3)._

      _W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
      chapters 36-40 (volume 3)._

      _E. Armstrong,
      Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
      chapters 11-14._

SPAIN: A. D. 1733.
   The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.
   Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,
   as a kingdom for Don Carlos.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
   Outbreak of hostilities with England.
   The War of Jenkins' Ear.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740.
   Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.
   Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
   The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.

SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
   The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
   Arrangements concerning Italy.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1746.
   Accession of Ferdinand VI.

SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
   Termination and results of the
   War of the Austrian Succession.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

SPAIN: A. D. 1759.
   Accession of Charles III.

SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
   The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
   England declares War.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.
   Havana lost and recovered.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
   End and results of the Seven Years War.
   Florida ceded to Great Britain.
   Louisiana acquired from France.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
   Occupation of Louisiana.
   The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1767.
   Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.
   The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.

{3000}

SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
   Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
   Great Britain and the United States.

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

SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
   The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
   of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788.
   Accession of Charles IV.

SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.
   The Coalition against revolutionary France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
      1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
      and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1793.
   Successes on the French frontier.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

SPAIN: A. D. 1794.
   French successes in the Pyrenees.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
   Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
   Cession of Spanish San Domingo.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
   Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
   Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1801.
   Re-cession of Louisiana to France.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

SPAIN: A. D. 1802.
   The Peace of Amiens.
   Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SPAIN: A. D. 1805.
   The naval defeat at Trafalgar.

   See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
   Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
   The popular rising.
   Accession of Ferdinand VII.

   "For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of
   revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his
   reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;
   she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered
   Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to
   destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,
   such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had
   remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had
   put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought
   himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and
   the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of
   doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on
   October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

   The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of
   the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the
   title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main
   provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold
   of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The
   occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving
   at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a
   following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under
   protection of the English fleet. At the same time there
   commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French
   troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,
   and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish
   fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the
   army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and
   marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and
   take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the
   world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,
   the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The
   lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the
   name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had
   established a character for comparative moderation. But here
   was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on
   what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the
   hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become
   king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New
   World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,
   although the course which events took seems to show that by
   means of a little delay he might have attained his end without
   such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had
   long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed
   to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the
   favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed
   an opposition, but in character he was not better than the
   trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on
   suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented
   this opposition without taking either side, and to have
   rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish
   people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who
   profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask
   him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime
   before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat
   now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at
   Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to
   the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand
   amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal
   mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon
   has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious
   letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame
   upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It
   warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an
   opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a
   'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in
   short, all that took place, but it has every mark of
   invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The
   reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French
   could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to
   encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under
   duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of
   Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a
   side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced
   to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he
   arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the
   30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news
   arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern
   suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in
   extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was
   learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really
   been suppressed.
{3001}
   This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that
   great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal
   monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent
   history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of
   the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled
   for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place
   throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A
   new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality
   movement of the nineteenth century."

      _J. R. Seeley,
      Short History of Napoleon I.,
      chapter 5, lecture 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1800-1815,
      chapter 52 (volume 11)._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapters 2-5 (volume 1)._

      _M. de Bourrienne,
      Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapter 32._

      _P. Lanfrey,
      History of Napoleon,
      volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
   The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
   National revolt.
   Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
   French reverses.
   Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
   Arrival of English forces to aid the people.

   "Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had
   fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and
   indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly
   even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a
   still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,
   consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for
   the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.
   Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous
   of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish
   nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of
   Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last
   induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession
   of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and
   the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative
   but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness
   of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon
   to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he
   even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had
   usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his
   utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish
   notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a
   constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two
   after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th
   a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the
   crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive
   alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to
   be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of
   a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,
   July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon
   Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from
   Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated
   May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their
   independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who
   had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a
   great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its
   effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and
   his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,
   calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent
   views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted
   from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;
   the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by
   the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced
   its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville
   followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox
   organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these
   insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,
   principally of persons who had held high civil or military
   posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to
   these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the
   principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in
   pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,
   and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and
   incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta
   issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.
   Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such
   it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its
   population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed
   the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the
   disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from
   the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's
   fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats
   of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five
   French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in
   the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June
   14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in
   an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid
   with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the
   Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000
   men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina
   del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the
   temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,
   and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than
   counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the
   French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and
   Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but
   they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at
   Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the
   French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down
   their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid
   August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the
   battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only
   inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them
   to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day
   after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him
   great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity
   towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot
   those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the
   exasperation of the people against their invaders, that
   numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz
   for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous
   inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the
   atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.
   The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the
   Spaniards.
{3002}
   Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by
   Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of
   almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in
   several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length
   compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August
   14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the
   arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men
   from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in
   the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen
   and provided him the means to transport his troops from
   Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of
   the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish
   nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in
   their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also
   encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke
   of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,
   and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom
   where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur
   Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego
   Bay, July 31st."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. Hamilton,
      Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
      volume 1, chapters 4-10._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      _General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 1._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 23-28._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
   Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
   Joseph reinstated at Madrid.

   The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in
   Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the
   Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the
   Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the
   fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish
   plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a
   prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th
   October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month
   Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his
   journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated
   Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General
   Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such
   vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that
   the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of
   these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day
   of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat
   at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his
   arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him
   with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,
   held their ground till the morning of the second day's
   fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake
   made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who
   had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;
   but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the
   Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about
   10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.
   Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40
   guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal
   Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with
   35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the
   Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only
   maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the
   French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell
   back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The
   right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and
   now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan
   with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But
   this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish
   lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the
   artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by
   the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard
   appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at
   once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,
   and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible
   in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,
   overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the
   morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to
   arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French
   entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,
   where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and
   renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city
   settled down once more to tranquil submission to the
   foreigner."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      The War in the Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
      Story of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 8._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
   Wellington's first campaign.
   Convention of Cintra.
   Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
   Napoleon in the field.
   Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
   His retreat.
   His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
   His death.

   "Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another
   corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the
   Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to
   co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by
   Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose
   exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse
   Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur
   Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on
   an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's
   corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000
   Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march
   towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French
   under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been
   joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their
   corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined
   Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force
   was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the
   morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their
   position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the
   20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British
   was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The
   attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French
   reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and
   centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the
   shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was
   nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private
   letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible
   beating on the 21st.
{3003}
   They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they
   would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not
   prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of
   the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and
   everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his
   corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when
   hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the
   evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to
   Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this
   instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated
   it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording
   it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite
   impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I
   wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and
   resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and
   Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at
   Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of
   Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions
   in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity
   of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.
   The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice
   and convention on the part of the king being communicated to
   Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was
   again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.
   The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the
   British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into
   Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with
   the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to
   lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir
   David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead
   of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that
   the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself
   come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the
   3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide
   tract of country. He had been led by false information to
   divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,
   inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the
   French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced
   corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were
   gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David
   Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes
   of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards
   Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening
   of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring
   army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating
   them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The
   winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of
   the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common
   consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved
   his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he
   carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge
   by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not
   save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of
   the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At
   Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted
   his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to
   whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,
   having received despatches which indicated that war with
   Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on
   the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had
   ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there
   were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind
   reception in the town; and their general applied himself to
   make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy
   that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the
   transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;
   and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British
   remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The
   battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.
   Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he
   had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the
   valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French
   infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a
   close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower
   ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before
   them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the
   guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd
   retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed
   'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the
   village. The British held their ground or drove off their
   assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful
   direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the
   earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the
   second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into
   Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before
   he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon
   General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to
   embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign
   came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and
   some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."

      _C. Knight,
      Crown History of England,
      chapter 57
      (abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,
      of Popular History of England)._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      books 2-4 (volume 1)._

      _J. M. Wilson,
      Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 13-16._

      _Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,
      volume 4._

      _G. R. Gleig,
      General Sir John Moore
      (Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._

      _Baron Jomini,
      Life of Napoleon,
      chapter 13 (volume 2)._

      _Duke de Rovigo,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3._

      _General Foy,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volume 2, part 2._

SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).
   The siege of Saragossa.

   "When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,
   who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of
   Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.
   Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at
   Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were
   slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were
   taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having
   hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of
   the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous
   atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.
{3004}
   The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour
   behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege
   of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce
   struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey
   and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended
   by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at
   Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the
   defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting
   glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up
   their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,
   mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty
   garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For
   doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,
   internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed
   by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong
   building was a separate fortification: there was no weak
   point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,
   where the space covered by houses was the measure of the
   ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut
   down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the
   town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,
   and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had
   large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,
   and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the
   city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were
   fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid
   which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath
   of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,
   and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to
   encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be
   invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,
   who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An
   appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed
   unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong
   confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the
   commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at
   noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky
   being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of
   fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first
   observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving
   from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the
   pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and
   then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such
   excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first
   beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of
   the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was
   universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming
   with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured
   the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her
   protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At
   daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the
   works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a
   general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian
   campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left
   bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their
   leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely
   invested, the siege operations being directed by General La
   Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the
   town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was
   referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has
   surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be
   sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to
   Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged
   attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a
   heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the
   French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders
   maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a
   forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The
   guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their
   condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been
   taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello
   (who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were
   steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,
   and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession
   of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the
   ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle
   fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked
   strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular
   resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into
   action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact
   moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,
   the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]
   were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no
   degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last
   extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should
   dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were
   constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens
   to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort
   which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had
   recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was
   unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was
   carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,
   and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive
   toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled
   together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the
   shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread
   from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,
   the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it
   alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the
   slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the
   beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five
   hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and
   thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and
   courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,
   were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up
   by the flames of burning houses as the defence became
   concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault
   took place, and so much of the town was carried that further
   resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by
   the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the
   heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the
   Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all
   the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none
   but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished
   and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according
   to the French: on honourable terms, according to the
   Spaniards.
{3005}
   Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the
   history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,
   they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were
   plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.
   … The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,
   surrendered to the French before the end of March. In
   Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met
   with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas
   after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of
   that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl
   of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in
   December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved
   Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000
   Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding
   at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including
   30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809
   Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the
   north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th
   February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding
   himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of
   Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be
   undertaken."

      _H. R. Clinton,
      The War in the Peninsula,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. M. Yonge,
      Book of Golden Deeds,
      page 365._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      _Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

      _Baron de Marbot,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 40._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).
   The war in Aragon.
   Siege of Gerona.

   "This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular
   war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced
   preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for
   some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but
   in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on
   the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess
   of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in
   the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th
   August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful
   assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of
   Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,
   Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent
   by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand
   assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the
   French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600
   men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,
   converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three
   successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced
   the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence
   devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were
   reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was
   yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr
   in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;
   but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,
   was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards
   died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was
   succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general
   whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the
   later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was
   unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the
   retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced
   with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in
   which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from
   the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach
   Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French
   asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards
   were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively
   at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely
   dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it
   had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      sections 566-567._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
   Wellington again in the English command.
   The French advance into Portugal checked.
   Passage of the Douro by the English.
   Battle of Talavera.

   "Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,
   conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to
   his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,
   the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,
   some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in
   possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,
   which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to
   the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the
   French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000
   men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General
   Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The
   proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the
   entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the
   direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,
   fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone
   walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove
   one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and
   Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime
   Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,
   had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the
   English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on
   his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted
   that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,
   Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should
   converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at
   Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should
   unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the
   occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain
   the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon
   the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of
   Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible
   that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;
   but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in
   his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution
   saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of
   the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned
   commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the
   marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.
   England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.
{3006}
   The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,
   though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by
   the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was
   known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the
   field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against
   France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the
   prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest
   point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a
   comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional
   Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the
   contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more
   effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the
   secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s
   colonial requirements left her little to show against the
   myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that
   60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for
   the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a
   force ever actually collected under the standards of
   Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors
   in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire
   on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the
   troops of the country; but these at first were little better
   than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of
   discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all
   foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious
   of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge
   which was denied to themselves. But above all these
   difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the
   Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these
   ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on
   the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of
   the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur
   Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared
   his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even
   if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample
   opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With
   these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be
   organised at its full strength; that it should be in part
   taken into British pay and under the direction of British
   officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English
   troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such
   was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his
   arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No
   longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government
   gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English
   commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was
   intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General
   Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the
   efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need
   only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable
   certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held
   a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There
   were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:
   —either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on
   Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the
   result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these
   plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference
   having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at
   once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force
   under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to
   about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a
   respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions
   of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against
   Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner
   ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he
   arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to
   dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s
   intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by
   pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus
   intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main
   body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of
   these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he
   directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the
   southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in
   width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing
   himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course
   was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on
   transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,
   and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived
   was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon
   supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose
   habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this
   memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he
   returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a
   company of the Buffs was established in the building.
   Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.
   The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped
   by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,
   held their ground; a passage was effected at other points
   during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual
   resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,
   and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down
   that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.
   … This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now
   at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to
   which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the
   defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no
   advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with
   such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his
   plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor
   as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of
   July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way
   towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of
   78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for
   the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000
   British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched
   to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force
   had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,
   alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at
   Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each
   other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French
   troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while
   nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line
   of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.
{3007}
   On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the
   best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the
   French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor
   and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great
   severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he
   remained master of the field against double his numbers,
   having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and
   having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of
   cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the
   French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field
   of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their
   whole disposable force upon the British army without success;
   and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable
   confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to
   those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the
   French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the
   opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his
   correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."

      _Memoir of Wellington,
      from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852. _

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4)._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 62 (volume 13)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
   Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
   and Alba de Tormes.

   Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,
   "Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging
   Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French
   armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp
   action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;
   and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000
   Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by
   Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,
   after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the
   scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them
   with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix
   their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence
   between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from
   his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was
   routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke
   del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort
   for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,
   including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for
   this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.
   The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;
   but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the
   miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all
   their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.
   Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,
   20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the
   wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the
   Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the
   last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was
   evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis
   from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be
   effected."

      _Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
      section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
   Wellington's difficulties.
   His retreat into Portugal.

   "In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
   arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
   troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
   circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
   Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
   occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
   advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
   supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
   General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
   obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
   from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
   endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
   advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
   Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
   Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
   Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
   from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
   Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
   speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
   driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
   Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
   Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
   attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
   Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
   Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
   Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
   accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
   there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult
   was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
   from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
   advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
   corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
   determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
   army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
   and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
   unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
   this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
   quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
   only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
   rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
   whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
   overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
   the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
   British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
   leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
   infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
   remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
   however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
   soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
   and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
   works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
   Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
   British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
   in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
   succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
   division of the enemy. …
{3008}
   Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
   induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
   Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
   Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
   complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
   Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
   With this action terminated the campaign which had been
   undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
   enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
   Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
   and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
   had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
   of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
   it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
   But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
   and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
   Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
   army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
   the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
   bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
   Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
   Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
   representations of the privations to which the British army
   had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
   authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
   that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
   Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
   army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
   triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
   Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
   The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
   Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
   that kingdom."

      _T. Hamilton,
      Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
      chapters 7 and 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Waite,
      Life of the Duke of Wellington,
      chapter 6._

      _Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2). _

SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).
   The Lines of Torres Vedras.

   "Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of
   Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last
   allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon
   boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that
   all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power
   would be turned against the only country which still struggled
   for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her
   bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so
   persevering? or the small English army effect against so
   formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so
   many nations? But during the very time when the world looked
   upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing
   weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.
   Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or
   the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very
   circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last
   extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a
   project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,
   and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign
   rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,
   the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,
   provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded
   to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to
   aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the
   French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central
   junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there
   alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so
   inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion
   pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any
   offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted
   with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very
   limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month
   amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He
   therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,
   rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive
   warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the
   risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,
   and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;
   where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the
   difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting
   our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should
   find it impossible to live. To stand out under these
   restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist
   with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him
   succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which
   afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the
   feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness
   and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which
   suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or
   originality of an operation which was, one may say, without
   precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for
   he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by
   the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost
   every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this
   point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was
   accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.
   There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella
   presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and
   deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural
   barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than
   one military observer. … Wellington was the first who
   conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole
   peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred
   miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should
   be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by
   cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the
   Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia
   and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the
   Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their
   cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding
   Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He
   at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious
   and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident
   occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might
   embark in safety.
{3009}
   This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and
   the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as
   far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it
   followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the
   Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by
   the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning
   of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel
   Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of
   workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up
   intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for
   inundating the plain."

      _P. Lanfrey,
      Life of Napoleon I.,
      volume 4, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Maxwell,
      Life of Wellington,
      volume 2, chapters 9-12._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

SPAIN: A D. 1810.
   Revolt of the Argentine provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
   The French advance into Portugal.
   Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.

   "By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered
   fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the
   Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,
   however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of
   Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this
   was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence
   was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the
   insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy
   general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of
   the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted
   in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was
   the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave
   Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the
   sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue
   Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his
   forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with
   memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on
   the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had
   entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September
   27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he
   advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his
   amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle
   utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders
   to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he
   was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled
   from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but
   as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a
   formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British
   commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,
   forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and
   sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch
   a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia
   to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and
   Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a
   small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to
   retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted
   with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object
   and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of
   a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess
   defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he
   attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only
   missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.
   This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in
   his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best
   lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been
   completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested
   Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered
   Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of
   Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded
   them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain
   that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;
   that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged
   Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the
   nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had
   defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,
   defended their walls to the last; and not a village from
   Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its
   lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had
   languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great
   chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In
   the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad
   Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese
   frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would
   direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a
   great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw
   open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made
   against the communications of the French, the object he
   steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of
   Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having
   just escaped from a great French army, so various were the
   fortunes of this most instructive war."

      _W. O'C. Morris,
      Napoleon,
      chapters 10-11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Hooper,
      Wellington,
      chapter 7._

      _J. H. Stocqueler,
      Life of Wellington,
      volume 1, chapters 4-10._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      volumes 2-3._

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      volumes 4-5._

      _A. Thiers,
      History of the Consulate and Empire,
      book 42 (volume 4)._

      _General Sir J. T. Jones,
      Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
      volume 1._

SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
   Revolt and achievement of independence in
   Venezuela and New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

A. D. 1810-1825.
   Revolt and independence of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
   Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
   Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.

   "In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between
   Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,
   by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;
   and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself
   at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in
   Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public
   attention, became from that hour, as far as France was
   concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective
   battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were
   forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in
   Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from
   time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and
   dispatched to reinforce the French armies.
{3010}
   Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and
   Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about
   1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while
   the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to
   operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The
   capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,
   isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head
   of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a
   condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington
   had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,
   was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet
   held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham
   was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,
   probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and
   kept open the communications between the detached corps. On
   the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving
   of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and
   thither, rendering the communications between the French
   armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout
   the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single
   corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,
   Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which
   did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while
   D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda
   with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total
   defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French
   far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,
   Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard
   of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed
   with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,
   formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might
   at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the
   counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such
   an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the
   commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'
   repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the
   direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions
   crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,
   and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,
   marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca
   was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and
   a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the
   opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies
   without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the
   decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of
   the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,
   had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of
   hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw
   themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the
   event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and
   centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one
   direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and
   left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was
   the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never
   permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid
   the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and
   chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and
   soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his
   orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those
   fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into
   columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the
   devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order
   executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole
   of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners
   remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken
   and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the
   reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.
   Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …
   Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was
   carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm
   and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved
   upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do
   to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was
   not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be
   restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand
   prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other
   trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in
   addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;
   whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to
   scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued
   his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant
   of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000
   men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of
   Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was
   communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward
   Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …
   while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes
   of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the
   confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was
   conducted with all the celerity and good order which
   distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On
   the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid
   in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,
   and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th
   came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;
   Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and
   the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of
   every sort, returned to their usual employments."

      _General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),
      Story of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 30._

      ALSO IN:
      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the Peninsula,
      book 18 (volume 4)._

      _Lieutenant Colonel Williams,
      Life, and Times of Wellington,
      volume 1, pages 275-290._

{3011}

SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
   Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
   Expulsion of the French.

   "The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but
   the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for
   in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two
   directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,
   having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),
   such were their numbers that each division became the centre
   of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against
   which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army
   of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,
   Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it
   appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under
   Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk
   of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture
   of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole
   combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king
   before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the
   deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than
   had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to
   recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from
   Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no
   course left but to summon that general northward, and to make
   a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was
   the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened
   the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very
   existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not
   but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a
   great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The
   jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and
   the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the
   Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little
   while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession
   of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen
   all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than
   anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.
   While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in
   the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …
   connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly
   threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,
   the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to
   evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position
   there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the
   basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,
   which forms in its course almost a right angle at the
   south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two
   sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high
   road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently
   large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered
   with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of
   some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the
   passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and
   drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond
   the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as
   best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the
   artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].
   The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive
   and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack
   them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of
   Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible
   for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic
   niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France
   intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly
   quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series
   of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one
   his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.
   Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the
   battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at
   length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne
   invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But
   by this time events on the other side of France had changed
   the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly
   driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be
   felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for
   the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious
   English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost
   Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards
   Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in
   Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of
   Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the
   Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great
   battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by
   both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,
   the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse
   evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it
   was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life
   which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already
   abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 3, pages. 1317-1321._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapters 76-77 (volume 16)._

      _Count Miot de Melito,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 33-34._

      _General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
      History of the War in the! Peninsula,
      volumes 4-5._

SPAIN: A. D. 1813.
   Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
   Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
   Abolition of the Cortes.
   Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
   Hostility of the people to freedom.

   "The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when
   just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as
   they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An
   envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that
   Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the
   Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the
   English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner
   at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he
   had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in
   Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in
   his little mind at this time appears to have been that the
   Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and
   infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should
   return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending
   to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no
   notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to
   the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult
   whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—
   which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted
   act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of
   Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of
   restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no
   ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms
   of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the
   circumstances under which it was made.
{3012}
   Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern
   quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who
   were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of
   restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,
   therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be
   recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the
   territory of Spain should be what it had been before the
   war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that
   Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,
   clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain
   should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights
   against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to
   King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed
   under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately
   be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive
   large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces
   in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a
   separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any
   regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act
   with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had
   invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative
   power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the
   Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the
   example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty
   know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how
   impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a
   state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops
   from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of
   Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with
   advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and
   exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late
   captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no
   better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of
   January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it
   might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,
   at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the
   Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to
   Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own
   dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and
   negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They
   suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from
   Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him
   all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there
   was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed
   or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break
   out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …
   He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before
   Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he
   entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went
   through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people
   cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but
   were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then
   followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to
   the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the
   abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the
   Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King
   before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole
   country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few
   months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state
   prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that
   convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the
   King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and
   became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and
   left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the
   great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of
   the proceedings of the late Cortes."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of England, 1800-1815,
      book 2, chapter 6._

   "Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to
   have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a
   wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met
   with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.
   On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom
   he and the great body of the nation were in perfect
   sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the
   core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The
   word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters
   over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The
   people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …
   The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was
   everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the
   existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the
   offices which had existed under the old system, and then
   required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In
   reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of
   government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had
   been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to
   govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic
   one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the
   Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more
   conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned
   to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he
   brought upon himself an indelible reproach."

      _R. Southey,
      History of the Peninsular War,
      chapter 46 (volume 6)._

SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
   The Constitution of 1812.
   Abrogated by Ferdinand.
   Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
   Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
   Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.

   "During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès
   had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which
   the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …
   Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself
   to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry
   and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which
   all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,
   and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled
   to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All
   national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not
   only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon
   the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The
   Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,
   appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,
   and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their
   opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten
   thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The
   kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's
   favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the
   courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a
   revolution in Spanish America.

      See
      ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
      COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
      MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
      CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
      PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.

{3013}

   The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural
   economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of
   sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state
   of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were
   left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A
   successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga
   and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished
   himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself
   in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,
   now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The
   Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the
   cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at
   Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when
   Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;
   remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The
   Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,
   and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the
   pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the
   State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of
   the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs
   restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three
   parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French
   'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate
   constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol
   of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy
   Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.
   On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with
   moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of
   revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,
   the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The
   revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by
   the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the
   clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the
   summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces
   in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of
   'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful
   atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French
   Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish
   affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon
   of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an
   army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the
   Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a
   Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the
   appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a
   street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough
   to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados
   from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or
   Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of
   the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern
   monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some
   resolution respecting Spain. …

      See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.

   They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the
   restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of
   observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was
   placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The
   Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old
   Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready
   to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of
   Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the
   ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th
   1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of
   Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from
   Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not
   enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,
   and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish
   the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,
   April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced
   was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not
   strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell
   [commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into
   negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to
   the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into
   Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …
   was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French
   corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had
   reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they
   retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom
   they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was
   appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which
   capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès
   escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in
   November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the
   end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army
   of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release
   was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that
   had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,
   was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular
   tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued
   an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French
   commander: an act, however, which on the principle of
   non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It
   is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the
   educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained
   in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,
   endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all
   sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,
   erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full
   extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of
   bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to
   resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in
   Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents
   styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the
   King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes
   listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and
   English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule
   uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The
   object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of
   his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the
   province disarmed, and many persons executed."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      History of Modern Europe,
      book 8 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Blaquiere,
      Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution._

      _F. A. de Châteaubriand,
      Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
      volume 1._

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 9 (volume 2)._

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 7, and 11-12._

{3014}

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
   The Allies in France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SPAIN: A. D. 1818.
   Chile lost to the Spanish crown.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPAIN: A. D. 1821.
   Mexican independence practically gained.
   Iturbide's empire.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.
   The Congress of Verona.
   French intervention approved.

      See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SPAIN: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833.
   Accession of Isabella II.

SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
   The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
   Abdication of Christina.
   Regency of Espartero.
   Revolution of 1843.
   Accession of Queen Isabella.
   Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.

   "The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,
   September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength
   lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the
   Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king
   under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful
   resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism
   and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,
   Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the
   liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and
   Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of
   principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the
   skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could
   oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the
   advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish
   frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile
   with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina
   applied to England and France, and between those two states
   and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of
   April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the
   constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to
   drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year
   both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the
   Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos
   reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in
   July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,
   appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with
   courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with
   passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of
   Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the
   Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to
   have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the
   command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In
   1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of
   Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood
   of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and
   compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion
   in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent
   pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence
   in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief
   command than military science, and which deposed the most
   capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new
   commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,
   the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your
   Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that
   category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated
   several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the
   northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and
   the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he
   [Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,
   who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,
   the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over
   to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained
   full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of
   Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's
   cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,
   with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six
   years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he
   had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke
   of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to
   Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,
   under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in
   Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in
   July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where
   they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,
   but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had
   been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important
   and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well
   as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina
   had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the
   Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.
   Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon
   as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.
   … In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought
   to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger
   cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of
   the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the
   palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution
   of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of
   this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.
   Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the
   elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the
   ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a
   municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal
   authorities in the hands of the administration. This
   occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when
   Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning
   victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to
   constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was
   the only man who could hold in check the revolution which
   threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,
   1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such
   circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,
   and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to
   the same result.
{3015}
   Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her
   favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her
   chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon
   published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was
   not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,
   and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and
   grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life
   forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to
   all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.
   October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to
   France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named
   Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and
   her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how
   actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working
   against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer
   relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals
   accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to
   England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a
   bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new
   insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to
   Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom
   Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;
   Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in
   Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.
   Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had
   conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at
   Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to
   return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the
   thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed
   the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister
   president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors
   were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue
   and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was
   altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure
   to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it
   the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in
   concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the
   marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of
   the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own
   youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to
   one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on
   account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,
   and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the
   person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,
   would be least likely to stand in the way of his son
   Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis
   Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."

      _W. Müller,
      Political History of Modern Times,
      section 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Bollaert,
      The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
      volume 2._

      _C. F. Henningsen,
      A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui._

      _Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
      Life of Palmerston,
      volume 3, chapter 7._

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 6._

SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
   Cuba in danger from the United States.
   Filibustering movements.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

SPAIN: A. D. 1861.
   Allied intervention in Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866.
   War with Peru.
   Repulse from Callao.

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
   Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
   Revolution of 1868.
   Flight of the Queen.
   Constitution of 1869.
   Religious toleration.
   Candidates for the vacant throne.
   Election of Amadeo of Italy.
   Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
   His abdication.

   "In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General
   Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused
   his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack
   of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more
   serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In
   October of the same year the Ministry, in a public
   proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic
   exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted
   an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a
   rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the
   country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been
   seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important
   municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the
   provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the
   municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By
   this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a
   despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The
   dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the
   government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the
   Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe
   criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations
   for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to
   ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal
   Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,
   and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and
   co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A
   provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few
   others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was
   appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force
   and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was
   authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule
   the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the
   royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to
   Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border
   into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a
   time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent
   proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a
   provisional government was at once established. A decree of
   the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,
   collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of
   historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and
   available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and
   transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,
   under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob
   assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated
   the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those
   engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This
   outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,
   awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created
   for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.
{3016}
   The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of
   the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited
   populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety
   and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the
   angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the
   Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be
   submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first
   articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the
   Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,
   assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking
   demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among
   whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact
   phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by
   General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday
   June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While
   recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important
   functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,
   and adhered to the monarchical form of government as
   corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and
   as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal
   principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate
   outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and
   inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.
   … Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial
   assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the
   people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges
   of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men
   before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed
   the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the
   exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown
   such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in
   the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger
   liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.
   the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State
   religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and
   ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for
   public and private worship under the limitations of the
   universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,
   professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the
   like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous
   condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional
   government, the title of Provisional Government having been
   changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was
   established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.
   From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until
   December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the
   street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate
   ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;
   and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …
   For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of
   Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default
   thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest
   embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of
   Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the
   Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …
   Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being
   removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November
   3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of
   Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate
   for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to
   put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was
   elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of
   seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a
   full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no
   applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the
   building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty
   thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,
   prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading
   Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised
   against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the
   Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and
   ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the
   formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince
   reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the
   presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.
   The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the
   populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government
   resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men
   as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo
   never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure
   Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don
   Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were
   opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced
   that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were
   inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,
   resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal
   authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which
   he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on
   the 11th of February, 1873.

      _J. L. M. Curry,
      Constitutional Government in Spain,
      chapters 3-4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Harrison,
      Spain,
      chapters 27-28._

SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.
   Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.

   On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
   the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
   strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
   But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
   provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
   by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
   troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
   which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
   young champion of divine right of course received the support
   of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
   Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
   who desired that their country should form a federation of
   provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
   Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
   A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
   Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
   had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
   statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
   landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
   republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
   extreme partisans.
{3017}
   His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
   coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
   shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
   the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
   and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
   Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
   or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
   misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
   henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
   and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
   of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
   the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
   more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
   except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
   change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
   and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
   The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
   meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
   the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
   Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
   whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
   in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
   lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
   also strove to free the administration from the habits of
   bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
   this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
   of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
   nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
   classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
   Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
   deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
   of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
   Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
   of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
   the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
   reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
   who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
   Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
   over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
   Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
   aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
   25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
   child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."

      _J. H. Rose,
      A Century of Continental History,
      chapter 43._

SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.
   Alphonso XIII.

   At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the
   queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name
   of her young son, Alphonso XIII.

   ----------SPAIN: End--------

SPALATO.

      See SALONA, ANCIENT.

   ----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.
   Discoveries and early settlements.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.
   Discovery and conquest of Mexico.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
      and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.
   Discovery and conquest or Peru.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
      and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
   Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.

      See ECUADOR.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
   Spanish conquests in Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
   Conquest of New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
   Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
   New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.

      See AUDIENCIAS.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.
   The Araucanian War.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
   Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.
   The Jesuits in Paraguay.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
   Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
      and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
   Revolt, independence and
   confederation of the Argentine Provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.
   Chilean independence achieved.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
   The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   Paraguayan independence accomplished.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
   The independence of Mexico.
   Brief Empire of Iturbide.
   The Federal Republic established.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
   Independence acquired in the Central American States.

      See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.
   The Congress of Panama.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

   ----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------

SPANISH ARMADA, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

SPANISH COINS.

   "The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
   different names at different times. Thus during the
   discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
   'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
   with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
   occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
   before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
   silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
   of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
   castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
   of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
   'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
   maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
   there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
   Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
   maravedis.
{3018}
   In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
   equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
   silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
   whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
   time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
   Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
   in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
   maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
   was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
   third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
   first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
   weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
   coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
   States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
   is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
   a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
   equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
   5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
   100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
   doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
   the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
   equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
   value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
   question."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note. _

SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

SPANISH ERA, The.

      See ERA, SPANISH.

SPANISH FURY, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

SPANISH INQUISITION, The.

      See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

SPANISH MAIN, The.

   "The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of
   Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term
   'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of
   South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the
   Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the
   Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,
   chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,
   and Porto Bello.

      See TIERRA FIRME.

   Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he
   speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"

      _C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, page 35, foot-note._

SPANISH MARCH, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 778.

SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------SPARTA: Start--------

SPARTA: The City.
   Its situation, origin and growth.
   Laconia.
   "Hollow Lacedæmon."

   "Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately
   from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of
   Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source
   is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very
   trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the
   city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a
   cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes
   over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town
   of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,
   and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the
   town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow
   Lacedæmon' of Homer."

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see
   DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in
   Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat
   of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The
   conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only
   full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ
   or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced
   to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or
   else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as
   Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,
   composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural
   and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually
   stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far
   beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants
   of remoter points being on that account in any less degree
   citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the
   Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they
   were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …
   Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ
   there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,
   the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the
   mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides
   (hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than
   trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the
   incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,
   the precipitous declivities of which they made available by
   means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free
   proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to
   primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The
   country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of
   the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably
   consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been
   conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on
   the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of
   handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important
   portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several
   risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos
   was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this
   is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally
   prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived
   the name of the Helots."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 1._

{3019}

SPARTA:
   The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.

   "Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended
   their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of
   the progress of her power we have only the most meagre
   information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early
   period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad
   government, a condition of affairs which was certainly
   unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus
   attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual
   animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of
   Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants
   after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks
   of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the
   cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan
   history that the condition of the country was for a long time
   one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit
   of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of
   affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.
   Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as
   the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her
   peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of
   his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,
   though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of
   the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than
   four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In
   his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were
   introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably
   later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of
   the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,
   when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess
   as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that
   the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The
   Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their
   peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to
   connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their
   authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately
   transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were
   given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any
   reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at
   Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good
   government.' They were therefore the oldest political
   ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found
   a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the
   tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia
   with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time
   to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward
   and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme
   power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a
   public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the
   community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and
   Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the
   first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the
   admixture of external elements, were divided into three
   tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that
   some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal
   arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of
   which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have
   been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including
   the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that
   each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the
   two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The
   Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time
   to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …
   Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced
   that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid
   which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The
   elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the
   Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew
   naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The
   work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but
   in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious
   whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus
   forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools
   but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars
   upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the
   use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to
   be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by
   their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on
   any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also
   made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for
   ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at
   Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.
   The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to
   diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and
   to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.
   … About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,
   two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan
   constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to
   the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was
   introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes
   and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and
   chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular
   decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is
   said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not
   know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find
   recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later
   times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though
   Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see
   EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle
   and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were
   five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of
   no great importance. But as they were intimately connected
   with the commons, elected from and by them as their
   representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a
   concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation
   for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time
   the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the
   state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the
   council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings
   were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing
   dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the
   increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the
   ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The
   kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always
   took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of
   Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only
   should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom
   for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.
{3020}
   The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and
   no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but
   as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for
   failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of
   the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the
   dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a
   feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many
   attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a
   fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was
   allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is
   perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent
   two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a
   chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights
   should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the
   Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which
   of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and
   arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical
   connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan
   citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In
   historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No
   speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons
   duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given
   by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,
   treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the
   ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of
   Sparta than her political constitution was the education and
   training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not
   exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was
   trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his
   life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of
   the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader
   ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the
   life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance
   were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender
   himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.
   Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;
   his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him
   at an early age to go through the same training in which he
   himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of
   sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in
   the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal
   freedom."

      _E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 1, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 6._

      _G. W. Cox,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 5._

      _C. O. Müller,
      History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
      book 3 (volume 2)._

SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
   The First and Second Messenian Wars.
   Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.

   "The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the
   people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military
   brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that
   time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.
   Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,
   it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have
   anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to
   produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their
   political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to
   the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their
   attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The
   kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had
   previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and
   expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple
   in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the
   two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a
   quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the
   outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The
   circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the
   two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of
   the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain
   redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,
   but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on
   the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their
   country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.
   After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison
   was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which
   were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the
   Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to
   submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient
   writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'
   struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king
   Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the
   exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly
   known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of
   Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered
   people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise
   up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'
   duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented
   as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own
   life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the
   later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by
   declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have
   been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.
   In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as
   the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian
   communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread
   the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,
   however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the
   days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian
   territory.

      See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

   To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
   the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
   Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
   frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
   communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
   Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
   these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
   severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
   they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
   position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
   wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
   territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
   down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
   century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
   area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
   square miles.
{3021}
   To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
   extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
   insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
   strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
   power she never made any further addition to her possessions
   in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
   natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
   social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
   could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
   in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
   the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
   asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
   active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
   the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
   Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
   Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
   Pisistratids."

      _C. H. Hanson,
      The Land of Greece,
      chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 9._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 7-8._

SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
   Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
   Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

SPARTA: B. C. 508.
   Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

SPARTA: B. C. 501.
   Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SPARTA: B. C. 496.
   War with Argos.
   Prostration of the Argive state.

      See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
   Headship in Greece recognized.
   Defiance of the Persian king.
   Enforced unity of Greece for war.

      See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.

SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
   The Spartan headship.

      See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

SPARTA: B. C. 480.
   The Persian War.
   Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.

SPARTA: B. C. 478.
   Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
   foiled by Themistocles.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
   Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
   Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
   its head.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
   The great Earthquake.
   The Third Messenian War.
   Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.

      See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.

SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
   Embittered enmity at Athens.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
   Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

SPARTA: B. C. 457.
   Interference in Phocis.
   Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

SPARTA: B. C.453.
   Five years truce with Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
   Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
   against Athenian rule or influence.
   The Thirty Years Truce.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

SPARTA: B. C. 440.
   Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
   Hearing of charges against Athens.
   Congress of Allies.
   Decision for war.
   Theban attack on Platæa.
   Opening of the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
   First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
   Invasions of Attica.
   Plague at Athens.
   Death of Pericles.

      See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.
   The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.

SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
   Its failure.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.

SPARTA: B. C. 425.
   The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
   Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
   Athenian defeat at Delium.
   Death of Brasidas.
   Peace of Nikias.

      See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
   The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
   The Argive confederacy.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Victory at Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
   Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

SPARTA: B. C. 413.
   Negotiations with Persian satraps.
   Subsidies for war against Athens.
   Invasion of Attica.
   The Decelian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
   Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His return to Athens.
   His second deposition and exile.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

SPARTA: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

SPARTA: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

SPARTA: B. C. 404.
   End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404.

SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
   The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
   The Harmosts in power.

   The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final
   by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta
   supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which
   is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.
   The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens
   were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He
   availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system
   of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic
   confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of
   men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so
   elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were
   established.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

{3022}

   In order to give security and strength to those governing
   bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their
   side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,
   was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the
   Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ
   (i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold
   sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict
   subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently
   also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans
   had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,
   and how they at bottom designed to make no essential
   difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and
   the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,
   submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the
   Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 72._

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

      _C. Sankey,
      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
      chapter 1._

SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
   War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
   Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
   Restored independence of Athens.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

SPARTA: B. C. 385.
   Destruction of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 385.

SPARTA: B. C. 383.
   Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.
   Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
   Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
   Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
   The conflict with Thebes.
   Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
   The battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.
   Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

SPARTA: B. C. 317.
   Building of Walls.

   It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the
   distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,
   that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The
   maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the
   deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a
   standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of
   the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the
   walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by
   the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
   foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even
   safety at home."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 96._

SPARTA: B. C. 272.
   Siege by Pyrrhus.

   Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the
   city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious
   Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,
   and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,
   marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)
   and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and
   repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away
   to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been
   solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another
   abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a
   woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which
   he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited
   forces.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.
   Downfall in the Cleomenic War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SPARTA: A. D. 267.
   Ravaged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

SPARTA: A. D. 395.
   Plundered by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

   ----------SPARTA: End--------

SPARTACUS, The Rising of.

   Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the
   barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were
   numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these
   schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose
   parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced
   into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them
   for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of
   these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators
   escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They
   had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved
   to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing
   himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by
   other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under
   his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him
   were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with
   captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern
   Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved
   toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,
   and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;
   but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the
   proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward
   again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be
   blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.
   In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals
   were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman
   lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated
   at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said
   to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to
   bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his
   life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the
   field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while
   6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the
   road between Capua and Rome.

      _G. Long,
      Decline cf the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 2._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.

SPARTAN EMPIRE.

      See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

SPARTAN TRAINING.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;
      also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.

{3023}

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

   The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House
   of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,
   nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally
   extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject
   to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only
   upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence
   occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large
   patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end
   of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of
   £4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy
   Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking
   rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the
   state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless
   contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his
   position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his
   way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the
   corridors used by members for passing to the committee,
   library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for
   anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his
   family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is
   outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching
   them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the
   chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business
   matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all
   members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the
   side."

      _The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117). _

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.
SPENCEANS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

SPEUSINII.

      See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.

SPHACTERIA, Capture of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

SPHINX, The.

   "About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid
   is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been
   given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of
   that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The
   body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where
   defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The
   total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,
   equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;
   the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The
   face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15
   centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a
   matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument
   of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know
   now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx
   was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)
   gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It
   must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image
   of an Egyptian god called Armachis."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 70._

SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

   ----------SPIRES: Start--------

SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
   The imperial Diets.
   Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
   and its withdrawal.
   Protest of Lutheran princes.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

SPIRES: A. D. 1689.
   Destruction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SPIRES: A. D. 1713.
   Taken by the French.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

   ----------SPIRES: End--------

SPOILS SYSTEM, The.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.
   Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

SPOLIA OPIMA.

   "The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,
   which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a
   Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the
   commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but
   three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won
   by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by
   Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the
   Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,
   a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated
   to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 12._

SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.

SPORADES, The.

      See CYCLADES.

SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
      GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.

SPRING HILL, Engagement at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.
   The first settlement.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

SPURS, The Day of the.

      See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SQUIRE.

      See CHIVALRY.

STAATEN-BUND.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

STADACONA.

      See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.

STADION, OR STADIUM, The.

      See HIPPODROME.

STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.

   "Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the
   Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the
   stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.
   This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by
   Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'
   … republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of
   Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may
   be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in
   reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the
   circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just
   about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a
   degree."

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

STADTHOLDER.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).

      See FRANCE: A. D, 1689-1691.

{3024}

STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE:
      17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.

STALLER AND HORDERE, The.

   "In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers
   of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the
   Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The
   Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,
   as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of
   the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon
   monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost
   importance as the court became stationary and no longer
   maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller
   retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal
   constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the
   military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing
   importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money
   and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."

      _J. R. Green,
      Conquest of England,
      chapter 10, note._

   "The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel
   thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,
   Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes
   Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume
   that he had the general management of the royal property, as
   well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The
   Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was
   properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon
   titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and
   Strator regis."

      _J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See, also, CONSTABLE.

STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

   During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders
   of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among
   them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the
   distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government
   which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of
   their party than had been known before in the history of the
   country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils
   system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in
   which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure
   of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and
   district,—became what was accurately described as a "political
   machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought
   under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions
   of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected
   to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of
   candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which
   controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics
   acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the
   name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican
   opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored
   Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.
   They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third
   term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,
   however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the
   nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when
   their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of
   Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the
   Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President
   when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,
   official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the
   Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,
   and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination
   of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the
   angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public
   life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.

      _J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 10-12._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapters 24-25._

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      chapters 60-65 (volume 2)._

STAMBOUL.

   "It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was
   only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a
   word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of
   Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of
   Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,
   Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states
   that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves
   called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to
   have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to
   reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,
   that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of
   what was originally called Pera."

      _E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 7, foot-note._

STAMFORD, Battle of.

      See LOSE-COAT FIELD.

STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).

STAMP ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765; and 1766.

STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).

   In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
   I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
   claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
   Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
   Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
   dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
   English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
   of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
   desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
   chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
   their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
   full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
   the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
   crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
   of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
   refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
   with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
   in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
   bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
   upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
   Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
   St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
   consecrated wafer.
{3025}
   The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
   in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
   well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
   full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
   which had now become the national weapon of the English;
   11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
   standard above described, which probably resembled the
   "Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
   Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.

      _J. F. Bright,
      History of England,
      period 1, page 79._

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.

STÄNDERATH, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.

STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,
   King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.

STANWIX, Fort.

   The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
   near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.

STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.
   Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

STANZ, Battle of (1798).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

STANZ, Convention of.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.

STAOUELI, Battles of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

STAPLE.
STAPLERS, The.

   "A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
   regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
   of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
   to have meant a particular port or other place to which
   certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
   or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
   be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
   king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
   English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
   wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
   accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
   kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
   Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
   recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
   charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
   the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
   and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
   Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
   altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
   within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
   Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
   1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
   thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
   staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
   restriction; but these were of brief duration.

      _G. L. Craik,
      History of British Commerce,
      chapter 4 (volume 1)._

   "The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
   the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
   woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
   prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
   staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
   of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
   before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
   which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
   exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
   was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
   occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
   reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
   Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."

      _C. Gross,
      The Gild Merchant,
      pages 140-141._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Anderson,
      History of Commerce,
      volume 1, page 216. and after._

STAR, Knights of the.

   "On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
   almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
   and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
   Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
   added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
   crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
   the same was embroidered on their mantles."

      _T. Johnes,
      Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
      book 1, chapter 152._

STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.

   "In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
   in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
   (la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
   of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
   cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
   Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
   Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
   were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
   3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
   called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
   distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
   close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
   probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
   of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
   judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
   erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
   Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
   Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
   administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
   Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
   inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
   court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
   extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
   was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      pages 181-183._

   "The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
   power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
   was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
   sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
   men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
   the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
   Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
   It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
   ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
   something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
   this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
   name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
   of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
   encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
   Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
   authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
   Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
   little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
   unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
   as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
   itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
   imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
   that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
   exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
   crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
   to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
   more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
   intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
   confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
   weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
   unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
   but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
   facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
   Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
   interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
   indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
   ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
   magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."

      _A. V. Dicey,
      The Privy Council,
      part 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      _R. Gneist,
      History of the English Constitution,
      chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2)._

STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.

   An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
   to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
   the British Crown.

      _Annual Register, 1861._

STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
   The circumstances of the writing of the song.

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

STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

STAROSTS.

   "Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.

      _Count Moltke,
      Poland,
      page 8._

         See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.

STARRY CROSS, Order of the.

   An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
   by the dowager Empress Eleanora.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   In the 14th Century.

   "I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
   identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
   of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
   PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
   existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
   tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
   for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
   D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
   follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
   not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
   make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
   forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
   himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
   might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
   rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
   and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
   at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
   the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
   himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
   not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
   as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
   before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
   States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
   which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
   very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
   States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
   outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
   lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
   took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
   created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
   raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
   session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
   Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
   King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
   son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
   became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
   Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
   and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
   help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
   Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
   States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
   which gave them full power to check and control the royal
   authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
   commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
   superintendence of the administration of the government during
   the intervals between sessions of the States-General
   themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
   promise of free government in France than across the channel.
   But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
   was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
   discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
   among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
   deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
   the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
   by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
   of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
   ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
   Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
   recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
   footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
   of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
   successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
   power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
   the ministers of the crown."

      _Sir J. Stephen,
      Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 10._

{3027}

   "The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
   greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
   rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
   political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
   shadows of national assemblies."

      _E. de Bonnechose,
      History of France,
      period 4, book 2, chapter 3._

   "One single result of importance was won for France by the
   states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
   the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
   set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
   incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
   John, the states-general became one of the principles of
   national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
   it remained without application, and the prestige of which
   survived even its reverses."

      _F. P. Guizot,
      Popular History of France,
      chapter 21._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thierry,
      Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
      volume 1, chapters 2-3._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   The last States General before the Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
   The States-General of 1789.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).

   ----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------

STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
      and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

   ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------

STATES OF THE CHURCH:
   Origin.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
   The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
   The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
   Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
   Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
      and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
   Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
   Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
   Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
   under Julius II.

      See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
      and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
   Alienation of Parma and Placentia.

      See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
   Annexation of Ferrara.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
   Annexation of Urbino.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
   Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
   Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
      1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
   Seizure by Napoleon.
   Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
   Final incorporation with the French Empire.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
   Papal Sovereignty restored.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
   Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
   Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

   ----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------

STATUTES.

      See LAW.

STAURACIUS,
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.

STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

   ----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------

STEAM ENGINE:
   The beginning of its invention, before Watt.

   "It is probable that the first contriver of a working
   steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
   1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
   [when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
   Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
   was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
   Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
   in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
   famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
   Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
   wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
   executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
   hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
   with water. … It is probable that the planning and
   construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
   the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
   experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
   the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
   description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
   modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
   and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
   in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
   leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
   adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
   it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
   lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
   same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
   Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
   immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
   proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
   Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
   experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
   Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
   years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
   received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
   of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
   that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
   apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
   consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
   of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
   success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
   a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
   attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
   large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
   but his undertakings were not successful.
{3028}
   He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
   motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
   turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
   piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
   "His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
   finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
   model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
   boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
   for the construction of another, and three years later he
   died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
   steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
   much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
   slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
   Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
   steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
   proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
   cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
   The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
   demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
   had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
   that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
   to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
   Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
   first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
   Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
   his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
   of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
   in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
   contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
   was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
   turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
   curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
   invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
   combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
   the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
   to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
   grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
   probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
   important invention by the circumstance of his having been
   brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
   being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
   miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
   he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
   made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
   create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
   water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
   steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
   high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
   imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
   frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
   its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
   Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
   which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
   entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
   used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
   a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
   pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
   until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
   water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
   of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
   efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
   machine."

      _S. Smiles,
      Lives of Boulton and Watt,
      chapters 1-4._

   "We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
   Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
   that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
   him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
   its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
   promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
   to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
   never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."

      _H. Dircks,
      Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
      page 337._

STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
   The improvements of James Watt.

   After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
   effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
   Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
   educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
   and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
   later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
   attention first, with all his profound physical and
   mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
   involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
   M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
   from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
   quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
   vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
   of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
   quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
   cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
   certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
   different temperatures. All these investigations would have
   occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
   brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
   conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
   labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
   very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
   into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
   steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
   cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
   by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
   lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
   rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
   cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
   been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
   immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
   its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
   to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
   expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
   contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
   contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
   steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
   vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
   a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
   desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
   render it complete.
{3029}
   The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
   would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
   temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
   vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
   atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
   water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
   spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
   attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
   called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
   beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
   accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
   the power of the machine, but the total gain was
   enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
   work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
   This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
   not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
   top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
   pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
   name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
   Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
   cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
   through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
   introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
   using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
   the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
   engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
   it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
   it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
   vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
   striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
   consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
   jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
   could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
   prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
   cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
   of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
   by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
   on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
   which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
   Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
   been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
   before he found the means to introduce his invention into
   practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
   who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
   patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
   the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
   erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
   with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
   Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
   dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
   but without the means of rendering it available." For five
   years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
   aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
   he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
   Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
   for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
   Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
   abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
   enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
   expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
   where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
   Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
   supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
   wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
   the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
   consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
   steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
   speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
   yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
   first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
   water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
   rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
   of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
   new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
   as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
   engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
   to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
   point of the additional power gained, was more important than
   the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
   time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
   introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
   the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
   quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
   and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
   the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
   steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
   would occupy too much space."

      _Life of James Watt
      (Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17)._

   "The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
   described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
   distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
   little more than improve it by altering the forms and
   proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
   embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
   engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
   rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
   work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
   if ever, real developments."

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Smiles,
      Lives of Boulton and Watt,
      chapters 5-17._

      _J. P. Muirhead,
      Life of James Watt. _

      _J. P. Muirhead,
      Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
      of James Watt._

   ----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------

STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
   The beginning of Railroads.

   "The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
   was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
   1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
   never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
   Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
   engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
   engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
   It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
   ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
   railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
   After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
   vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
   means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
   feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
   made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
   the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
   sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
   widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
   varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
   essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
   original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
   itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
   when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
   rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
   engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
   heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
   be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
   of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
   used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
   tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
   in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
   Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
   trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
   directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
   by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
   and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
   blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."

      _W. J. M. Rankine,
      Manual of the Steam Engine,
      pages xxv-xxvii._

   George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
   self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
   engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
   following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
   undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
   called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
   already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
   the important improvements which he had effected in the
   colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
   considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
   he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
   locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
   West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the
   colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
   quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
   the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
   engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
   Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
   wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
   had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
   engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
   alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
   been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
   Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
   were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
   450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
   carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
   for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
   indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
   constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
   economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
   horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
   a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
   measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
   that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
   the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
   be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
   about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
   decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
   useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
   steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
   of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
   and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
   second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
   constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
   "It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
   mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
   since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
   although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
   use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
   comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
   was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
   Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
   locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
   was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
   great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
   Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
   chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
   took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
   offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
   locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
   the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
   attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
   of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
   Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
   by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.

      _S. Smiles,
      Life of George Stephenson,
      chapters 9-24._

   "Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
   railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
   State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
   school history of the United States knows something of the
   Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
   never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
   all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
   from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
   of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
   built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
   Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
   Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
   was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
   miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
   however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
   Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
   energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
   her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
   this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
   There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
   Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
   country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
   locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
   four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
   Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
   Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
   machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
   prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
   constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
   the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
   which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
   possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
   January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
   Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
   … In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
   had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
   the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
   indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
   There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
   a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
   About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
   speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
   which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
   place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
   August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
   other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
   scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
   hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
   demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
   ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
   country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
   take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
   Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
   world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
   mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
   1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
   trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
   was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
   Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
   not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
   but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
   after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
   each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
   to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
   already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
   March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
   however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
   on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
   Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
   moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
   Brown."

      _C. F. Adams, Jr.,
      Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
      chapter 1._

   ----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------

STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.

   "The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
   by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
   in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
   seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
   results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
   drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
   the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
   to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …

      See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.

   In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent
   for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing
   to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive
   evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of
   experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,
   which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his
   prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded
   by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay
   on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given
   to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like
   those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each
   side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable
   essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,
   published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences
   et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss
   clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper
   relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan
   was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,
   and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship
   propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were
   made in the United States to solve this problem. … William
   Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
   Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful
   mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,
   where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,
   and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.
   He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to
   driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the
   construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
   Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a
   trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near
   Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was
   lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a
   second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
   the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,
   presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John
   Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
   acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,
   and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions
   of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …
   Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study
   the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and
   protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the
   first suggestion which afterward … made the young
   portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In
   France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to
   perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine
   more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more
   regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,
   readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …
{3032}
   Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,
   friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,
   and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of
   applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined
   to attempt the realization of the plans which he had
   conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained
   from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and
   formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was
   commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in
   September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,
   foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,
   D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of
   D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
   Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by
   the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
   mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were
   adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by
   Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.
   The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still
   undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at
   his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished
   himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John
   Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in
   view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's
   experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
   a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current
   of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of
   General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been
   reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a
   great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling
   the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey
   died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before
   a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the
   age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from
   his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and
   steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an
   unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut
   mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he
   finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built
   his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]
   was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.
   … In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American
   Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he
   had substituted an endless chain and floats for the
   paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he
   tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of
   the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither
   paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on
   each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in
   1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the
   stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from
   Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of
   excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles
   an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven
   miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a
   passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,
   Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the
   boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no
   serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch
   commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was
   never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United
   States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in
   1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,
   Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little
   screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that
   part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.
   This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like
   that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made
   engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this
   time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable
   future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in
   the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in
   Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an
   interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led
   to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that
   country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced
   experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple
   hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts
   of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he
   placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in
   1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next
   year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But
   for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In
   the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides
   Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas
   Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and
   William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the
   latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to
   make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion
   of ships so completely successful that no interruption
   subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of
   water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The
   first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to
   have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready
   for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte
   Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those
   who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
   importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry
   Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the
   first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built
   in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed
   several other boats in 1815, and with his success
   steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."
   Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few
   years in the United States, through the labors and exertions
   of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and
   Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),
   where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three
   years later they renewed them in America, using an engine
   ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of
   1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was
   launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
   River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in
   successful operation.
{3033}
   The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9
   deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the
   distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning
   in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable
   length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to
   be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the
   great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation
   an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont
   on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised
   the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
   Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and
   enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to
   Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the
   Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he
   built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply
   between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year
   two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton
   had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by
   him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of
   Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it
   by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two
   screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly
   which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little
   ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had
   thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly
   on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at
   Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first
   steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.
   "The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built
   in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. H. Thurston,
      Robert Fulton._

      _C. D. Colden,
      Life of Robert Fulton._

      _T. Westcott,
      Life of John Fitch._

STEAM NAVIGATION:
   On the Ocean.

   "In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.
   This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's
   Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between
   New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,
   purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and
   fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being
   constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in
   use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left
   Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,
   using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes
   several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.
   In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made
   to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,
   touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.
   Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her
   original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by
   being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But
   steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more
   boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam
   was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful
   kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in
   Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to
   Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had
   settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the
   question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross
   the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had
   become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it
   may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood
   was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes
   in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold
   genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an
   off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was
   then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.
   She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4
   inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for
   the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great
   Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from
   Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was
   the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;
   and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on
   April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the
   possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which
   the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased
   the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and
   prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the
   Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol
   on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on
   board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon
   of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor
   (where she had touched en route from London) four days before
   the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had
   nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on
   arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was
   barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the
   reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event
   which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had
   practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the
   Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return
   voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,
   though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years
   following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic
   trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the
   President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a
   screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great
   Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was
   founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in
   company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver
   of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the
   paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean
   navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical
   introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,
   John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of
   many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by
   Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States
   Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction
   of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the
   paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and
   more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river
   navigation.

      _F. E. Chadwick,
      The Development of the Steamship
      ("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. J. Maginnis,
      The Atlantic Ferry,
      chapters 1-2._

      _R. H. Thurston,
      History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
      chapter 5._

      _W. C. Church,
      Life of Ericsson,
      chapters 6-10 (volume 1)._

{3034}

STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.

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

STEEL BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

STEEL YARD, The Association of the.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
      1807-1808; and 1808.

STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.

STELA, OR STELE.

   "This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian
   archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in
   hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally
   rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians
   for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally
   speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to
   transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to
   the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of
   monumental placard."

      _A. Mariette,
      Monuments of Upper Egypt,
      page 29, foot-note._

STENAY: A. D. 1654.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

STENAY: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,
   Robert and Henry, The Press of.

      See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.

STEPHEN
   (of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.

   Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.

   Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.

   Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.

   Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.

   Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.

   Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),
   Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.

   Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.

   Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.

   Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.

   Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.

   Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.

   Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.

   Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.

   Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.

   Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.

STEPHENS, Alexander H.
   Opposition to Secession.

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

   Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious
   "Confederate States."

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

   The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).

STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION.

STETTIN: A. D. 1630.
   Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.

STETTIN: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

STETTIN: A. D. 1677.
   Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

STETTIN: A. D. 1720.
   Cession by Sweden to Prussia.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

STEUBEN, Baron,
   in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).

STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.

STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.

STEWART DYNASTY, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.

STILICHO, Ministry of.

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.

STILLWATER, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.

   Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,
   after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and
   which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.
   Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by
   the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate
   attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that
   the battle of Bannockburn was fought.

      _J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapters 22-23 (volume 2)._

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.

STOA, The.

   "We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in
   connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as
   a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The
   stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament
   of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks
   and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade
   bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface
   for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A
   stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of
   the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the
   Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of
   Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further
   extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have
   observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on
   the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,
   … as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic
   stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice
   Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,
   not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double
   colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the
   roof."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      part 1, section 27._

{3035}

STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).

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

STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.
   Battle of the Brunkeberg.

         See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.
   Siege by Gustavus Vasa.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.
   Attacked by the Danes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

STOLA, The.

   "The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic
   descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated
   'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification
   displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.
   Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under
   the name of palla."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1, page 38._

STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.

STONE AGE.
BRONZE AGE.
IRON AGE.

   "Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less
   abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities
   referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and
   other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of
   implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to
   classify these relics and remains according to their relative
   antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and
   ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an
   arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three
   periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the
   Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest
   was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed
   exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal
   for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age
   succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting
   instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be
   made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in
   the course of time iron replaced bronze for
   cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the
   Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so
   many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,
   Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in
   different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been
   found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age
   into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New
   Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John
   Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and
   Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older
   of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very
   rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and
   never ground or polished."

      _J. Geikie,
      Prehistoric Europe,
      pages 5-11._

STONE OF DESTINY, The.

      See LIA-FAIL.

STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

STONE STREET.

   An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.

STONEHENGE.

      See ABURY.

STONEMAN'S RAID.

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

STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.

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

STONINGTON, Bombardment of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.

STONY POINT, The storming of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

STORTHING, The.

      See THING;
      also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
      and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.

STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;
      also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

STRALSUND: The founding of the city.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.
   Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.
   Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.

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

STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.
   Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.

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

STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.
   Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
   Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
   Stormed and captured by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

   ----------STRASBURG: Start--------

STRASBURG: A. D. 357.
   Julian's victory.

   The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the
   Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a
   Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed
   the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory
   for the Romans.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 19._

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
   The Oaths.

   During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of
   Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at
   Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,
   formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in
   Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and
   their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in
   February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of
   friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence
   of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was
   repeated in the German language, and in the Romance
   language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has
   been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we
   have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the
   modern French was formed."

      _P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      The French Under the Carlovingians,
      translated by Bellingham,
      chapter 8._

{3036}

STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.
   Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
   Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.
   The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.

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

STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.
   Seizure and annexation to France.

      Overthrow of the independence of the town
      as an Imperial city.

         See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.
   Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.
   Siege and capture by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),
      and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.
   Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.

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

   ----------STRASBURG: End--------

STRATEGI.

   In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders
   appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the
   kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system
   belonged to a board of ten Strategi.

      G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapters 1 and 3.

STRATHCLYDE.

      See CUMBRIA;
      also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

STRELITZ,
STRELTZE.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.

STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

STUARTS, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

STUM, Battle of (1629).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

STUNDISTS, The.

   In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the
   Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name
   implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the
   great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants
   from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,
   their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many
   years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept
   Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or
   later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants
   who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their
   sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their
   services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and
   prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New
   Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them
   found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple
   scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told
   their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the
   heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from
   village to village, and from province to province, till at
   length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces
   from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the
   land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to
   number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.
   Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,
   and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very
   considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions
   strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing
   Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and
   extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.
   … Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,
   the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a
   quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of
   Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as
   ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek
   Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the
   whole mass."

      _J. Brown, editor,
      The Stundists,
      preface and chapter. 14._

STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.

STYRIA:
   Origin, and annexation to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

STYRIA:A. D. 1576.
   Annexation of Croatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

STYRIA:17th Century.
   Suppression of the Reformation.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

SUABIA, The Imperial House of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.

SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.

      See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.

SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.

      See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;
      also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
      and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;
      also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

SUARDONES, The.

      See AVIONES.

SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.

   The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with
   which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,
   and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No
   trace of it exists.

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2. page 103._

SUBLIME PORTE, The.

   "The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
   [Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
   describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
   Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
   sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
   government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
   Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
   modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
   Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
   Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
   details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
   metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
   by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
   the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
   4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
   these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
   rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
   employed in the court.
{3037}
   There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
   law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
   important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
   Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
   chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
   … high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
   to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
   of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
   authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
   Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
   Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
   its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
   Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
   became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
   Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
   officers of the court."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      pages 96-97._

      See, also, PHARAOHS.

SUB-TREASURY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.

SUBURA, at Rome, The.

   "Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline
   hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by
   the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the
   most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave
   name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it
   entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be
   inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius
   Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The
   Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small
   shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."

      _H. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 6, part 1._

SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

SUCCESSION, The Spanish:
   The question and war of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SUCCOTH.

      See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

   ----------SUDAN: Start--------

SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.

   "Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that
   section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.
   By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,
   limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as
   it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no
   definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at
   the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is
   generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it
   properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.
   Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression
   'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising
   Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,
   strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right
   across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost
   to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the
   Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become
   sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the
   geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to
   make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region
   inhabited by them."

      _Hellwald-Johnston,
      Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
      chapter 9._

SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
   Egyptian conquest.
   General Gordon's government.
   The Mahdi's rebellion.
   The British campaign.
   Death of Gordon.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.

   ----------SUDAN: End--------

SUDOR ANGLICUS.

      See SWEATING SICKNESS;
      and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.

SUDRAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

SUESSIONES, The.

      See BELGÆ.

SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

   ----------SUEVI: Start--------

SUEVI,
SUEBI, The.

   "I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are
   the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of
   Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes
   with names of their own, though they are called by the general
   designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to
   twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This
   distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also
   does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem
   to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the
   Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and
   Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as
   Suevia."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter. 38, with geographical note._

   "The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's
   Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly
   belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other
   German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering
   one."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, with note._

   "The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological
   term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country
   occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the
   Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal
   geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,
   coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of
   Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part
   of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later
   than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …
   Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for
   that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name
   of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'
   With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,
   or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with
   the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of
   France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the
   Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander
   to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225
   to A. D. 475."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,
      section 20._

      See, also, ALEMANNI,
      and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.

{3038}

SUEVI: B. C. 58.
   Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.

   A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name
   of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and
   entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of
   the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league
   against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the
   German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,
   and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,
   summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The
   Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors
   into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his
   Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then
   just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces
   and had signalized his first appearance in the field by
   stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying
   two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their
   mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in
   Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the
   Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with
   disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant
   war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,
   was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place
   about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58
   B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and
   almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few
   followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Cæsar, Gallic Wars,
      book 1, chapters 31-53._

      _Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 4._

SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.
   Final invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

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

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
   Their history in Spain.

   "The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in
   Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became
   Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their
   history contains merely an account of the wars which they had
   to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and
   bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be
   brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,
   united them to the monarchy of Spain."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7 (volume l)._

      See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,
      and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.

SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
   In Germany.

   Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the
   German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed
   southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the
   great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west
   corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the
   Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,
   perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled
   with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no
   doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the
   time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the
   monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove
   remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.
   The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation
   of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the
   mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,
   which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the
   land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that
   occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."

      _T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

      See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

   ----------SUEVI: End--------

SUEVIC SEA.

   The ancient name of the Baltic.

SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.

      See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

SUFFETES.

   "The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless
   inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in
   Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by
   two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their
   name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our
   Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like
   their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of
   Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of
   their respective states."

      _R. B. Smith,
      Carthage and the Carthaginians,
      chapter 1._

      See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

SUFFRAGE, Woman.

      See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

SUFIS.

   A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi
   devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he
   must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his
   union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption
   into the Divine Being."

      _J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10._

SUGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.

      See USIPETES;
      also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.

SUGAR ACT, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

SUIONES, The.

   "Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,
   seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men
   and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour
   wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of
   Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the
   Cimbri were derived the Normans."

      _Tacitus,
      Germany,
      Oxford Translation,
      chapter 44 and note._

SULIOTES, The.

   "The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
   of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
   of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
   episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
   The chief families traced their origin to different villages
   and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
   appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
   Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
   the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
   well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
   Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
   community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
   history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
   great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
   Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
   seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
   considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
   mountain in time of war. …
{3039}
   They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
   with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
   were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
   last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
   200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
   petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
   their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
   proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
   1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
   Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
   written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
   political unit of the State. The families were grouped
   together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
   were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
   disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
   Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
   the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
   they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
   them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
   their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
   themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
   perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
   The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
   which the community was involved before their great struggle
   with Ali."

      _R. Rodd,
      The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,
      chapter 10._

SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.

      See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

SULLIVAN, General John,
   and the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

SULTAN, The Title.

   Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was
   first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of
   the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic
   word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William
   Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:
   "It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but
   it seems at all events to have been older than the time of
   Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of
   Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed
   by the Bowides."

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

SUMIR,
SHUMIR.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

   ----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
   Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
   States Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 MARCH-APRIL).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
   Attack and repulse of the Monitors.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
   Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
   Recovery by the nation.
   The restoring of the flag.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

   ----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------

SUNNAH, The.

      See ISLAM.

SUNNI SECT, The.

      See ISLAM.

SUOVETAURILIA.

   Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the
   ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103._

SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SUPREMACY, The Acts of.

   The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence
   of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,
   was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry
   VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and
   reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
   England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,
   annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as
   well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,
   pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,
   immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of
   Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';
   with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,
   errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by
   any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be
   reformed or corrected."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 11._

   The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and
   re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.

   "On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
   Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
   Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
   first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
   when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
   spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
   1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
   any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
   1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
   York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
   judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
   accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
   famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
   Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
   pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
   his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
   refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
   of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
   and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
   associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
   made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
   Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
   Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
   the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
{3040}
   In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
   Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
   Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
   Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
   his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
   President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
   was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
   of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
   form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
   death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
   Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
   appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
   W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
   appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
   an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
   in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
   to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
   growth of the country."

      _J. S. Landon,
      The Constitutional History and Government
      of the United States,
      lecture 10._

   "The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,
   section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the
   number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present
   there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500
   (£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The
   justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
   Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are
   removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even
   more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be
   removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of
   Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely
   anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,
   regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the
   States against aggressions of either Congress or the
   President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote
   in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the
   continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than
   the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might
   flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result
   has justified their expectations. The judges have shown
   themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the
   security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches
   of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,
   once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then
   unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from
   Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms
   of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal
   judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most
   States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed
   constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington
   from October till July in every year."

      _J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth,
      part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1)._

   "It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world
   which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare
   an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and
   void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of
   the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting
   alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act
   illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed
   by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any
   other power. For in England there is no written constitution;
   the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting
   together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is
   not only possible that President, Senate, or House of
   Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three
   acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not
   boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the
   constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,
   have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent
   to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.
   If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can
   declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows
   directly from the difference between a written and an
   unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state
   which has a written constitution need vest in its highest
   court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly
   seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is
   highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can
   exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no
   written constitution, it cannot."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The English People in its Three Homes:
      Lectures to American Audiences,
      pages 191-192._

SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

SURENA.

   The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the
   Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the
   king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for
   an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who
   defeated Crassus.

      _G. Rawlinson,
      Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
      page 23._

SURGERY.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE.

SURINAM.

      See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

SURPLUS, The distribution of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

SURRATT, Mrs.:
   The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

SUSA.
SUSIANA.
SHUSHAN.

   Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,
   Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,
   was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian
   empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.
   A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,
   undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has
   brought to light some remarkably interesting and important
   remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the
   Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,
   and it is sometimes still used in that sense.

      _Z. A. Ragozin,
      Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
      appendix to chapter 10._

      See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.

SUSIAN GATES.

   A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
   Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
   difficulty in forcing the Gates.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 93._

SUSIANA.

      See SUSA.

SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

SUSQUEHANNAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

{3041}

SUSSEX.

   Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
   conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which
   acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly
   represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and
   Surrey.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SUTRIUM, Battle of.

   A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits
   ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 10._

SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

SUVARROF,
SUWARROW,
   Campaigns of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
      also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

SVASTIKA, The.

      See TRI-SKELION.

SWAANENDAEL.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

SWABIA.

      See SUABIA.

SWAMP ANGEL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SWAN, The Order of the.

   A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th
   century, which disappeared in the century following, and was
   revived in 1843.

SWANS, The Road of the.

      See NORMANS.

SWEATING SICKNESS, The.

   The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and
   fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,
   and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three
   instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was
   always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.
   Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which
   accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.

      _J. H. Baas,
      Outlines of the History of Medicine,
      pages 318-319._

      See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.

SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.

      See SUIONES.

SWEDEN: History.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

SWEDEN: Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.

SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.

SWERKERSON.

      See CHARLES SWERKERSON;
      and JOHN SWERKERSON.

SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.

SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.

   Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.

   Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.

   Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.

SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;
      and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

   ----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------

SWITZERLAND:
   Early inhabitants.

      See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
      also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

SWITZERLAND:
   The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
   (Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
   Austria.
   History divested of Legend.

   "It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar
   had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION
   OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of
   the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of
   Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman
   eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the
   lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of
   the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the
   mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no
   doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they
   have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;
   but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the
   great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher
   valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the
   fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of
   these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet
   been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with
   could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than
   these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of
   Switzerland, having established among themselves that
   political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In
   ethnological history, they were the latest members of the
   Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants
   after the more accessible portions of the country had been
   peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the
   confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest
   of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,
   settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had
   gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,
   as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to
   Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall
   were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is
   supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent
   population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.
   Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par
   Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied
   himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of
   property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of
   litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,
   for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the
   Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the
   accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,
   that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within
   their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of
   monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the
   ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the
   most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals
   through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who
   sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the
   community.
{3042}
   In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,
   and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger
   estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy
   in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive
   popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally
   figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious
   people, ever on the watch for the protection of their
   liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,
   indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady
   adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their
   acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of
   notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the
   opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his
   ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to
   arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many
   fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman
   Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN
   EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to
   associate that mighty central organisation with popular
   liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong
   and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free
   cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the
   heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the
   Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their
   narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local
   conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled
   city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King
   of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history
   of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with
   the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a
   connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,
   whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of
   the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as
   belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district
   fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen
   advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor
   to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the
   title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally
   exercised what power the Empire retained over its free
   communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily
   ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of
   sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it
   seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date
   the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the
   Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,
   as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This
   instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the
   community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by
   Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the
   people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the
   enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them
   that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from
   the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point
   reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by
   others, is, that at this remote period the district which is
   now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as
   one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the
   immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's
   researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character
   of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we
   should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was
   most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.
   The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.
   … In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph
   over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is
   uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal
   lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his
   policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as
   emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters
   of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like
   their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to
   have certified their right to that character. In the
   fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not
   hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time
   even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden
   acted with the other two as an independent community. In the
   disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all
   three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications
   that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these
   mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of
   Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted
   for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed
   the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the
   Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the
   Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial
   power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the
   imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance
   candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his
   descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the
   electors should show that they retained their power by another
   choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their
   interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for
   their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy
   [Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.
   Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the
   very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early
   independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of
   Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of
   unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old
   league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a
   Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and
   referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets
   down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for
   the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence
   arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If
   this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the
   Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the
   Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century
   earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the
   existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received
   history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the
   alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the
   battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in
   contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.
{3043}
   The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,
   endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in
   their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on
   the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the
   chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the
   end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of
   Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the
   Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by
   the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and
   that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the
   occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on
   Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the
   quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and
   the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no
   instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg
   side. It was the object of that power to obtain political
   ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or
   wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in
   which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those
   of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,
   relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of
   parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and
   the like; others related to larger questions, as to the
   commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of
   goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms
   of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side
   of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising
   imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have
   obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which
   made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a
   critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss
   Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct
   light than either history or record preserves of the immediate
   motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the
   Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle
   for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of
   Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how
   Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,
   could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an
   expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical
   writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects
   to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent
   to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a
   magnificent army did march against them, and that it was
   scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at
   Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event
   too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to
   dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed
   their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate
   to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation
   comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the
   base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation
   were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed
   M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the
   triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no
   consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the
   play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the
   Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences
   on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,
   Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,
   assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of
   Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league
   against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss
   Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William
   Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history
   under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear
   on it.

      _The Legend of Tell and Rütli
      (Edinburg Review, January, 1869)._

      ALSO IN:
      _O. Delepierre,
      Historical Difficulties._

      _J. Heywood,
      The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
      Origin of the Legend of William Tell
      (Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5)._

SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.

      See BURGUNDY.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
   Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
   beyond Lake Geneva.
   The city of Geneva surrounded.

      See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
   The extension of the old Confederation,
   or "Old League of High Germany."
   The Three Cantons increased to Eight.

   "All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
   and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
   High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
   a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
   the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
   and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
   the states which formed the old Confederation lay
   geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
   part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
   But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
   the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
   small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
   extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
   German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
   first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
   the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
   Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
   become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
   that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
   it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
   the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
   geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
   there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
   always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
   less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
   original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
   The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
   Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
   more lasting and became more closely united than other German
   Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
   Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
   members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
   and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
   modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
   original German Confederates.
{3044}
   The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
   formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
   of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
   become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
   Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
   neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
   Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
   all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
   the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
   form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
   came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
   territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
   which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
   detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
   lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
   alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
   separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
   cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
   were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
   shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
   towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
   each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
   in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
   century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
   of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
   by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
   other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
   Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
   Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
   territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
   States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
   confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
   admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
   European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
   purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
   German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
   German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
   annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
   Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
   acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
   of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
   Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
   this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
   lands to the west."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 8, section 6._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
   Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.

   "Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month
   than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won
   the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the
   petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement
   would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that
   there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and
   oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for
   some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace
   had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a
   sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare
   for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the
   intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne
   levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and
   entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow
   the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of
   war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of
   Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,
   and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …
   The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant
   swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions
   against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the
   truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first
   attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make
   Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to
   draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division
   of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.
   Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls
   of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,
   and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being
   variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched
   his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about
   way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending
   to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the
   Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to
   defend herself, and struck straight across the country in
   pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they
   encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The
   Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable
   road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully
   along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and
   then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their
   surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee
   and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss
   force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force
   taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,
   and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset
   was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip
   his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove
   them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush
   them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed
   against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a
   foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A
   good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified
   by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the
   ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his
   comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my
   wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold
   of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to
   the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades
   rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the
   Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A
   fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and
   there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than
   700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great
   victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far
   greater military and political eminence. … The story of
   Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless
   but interesting discussion.
{3045}
   The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor
   denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried
   is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great
   Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of
   Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …
   The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to
   that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their
   spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus
   valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing
   1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This
   peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in
   1412, for 50 years."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      The Story of Switzerland,
      chapter 15._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
   The Grey Leagues.
   Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
   Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
   The Swabian War.
   Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.

   "It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th
   century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]
   felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against
   the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See
   of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic
   nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they
   began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and
   the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a
   century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of
   those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden
   into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,
   which had been steadily rising in power, together with the
   immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined
   into an association, which assumed the name of the
   Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of
   the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league
   between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,
   the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.
   This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition
   because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more
   probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.
   The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the
   great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of
   Toggenburg into the hands of females and their
   representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten
   Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the
   Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the
   Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to
   the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it
   1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,
   as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth
   mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,
   and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of
   the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed
   a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and
   aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of
   which they still considered themselves to form a part, and
   without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance
   or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This
   important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine
   territory, and which made the individual members of its
   numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was
   peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the
   formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure
   democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties
   with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose
   from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The
   Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive
   properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of
   contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the
   Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the
   Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower
   Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood
   between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But
   the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,
   when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War
   (1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of
   south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his
   Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his
   encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey
   Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound
   Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the
   Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.
   Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always
   ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in
   the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the
   Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.
   Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this
   prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a
   narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens
   out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey
   Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many
   thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean
   estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened
   to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted
   villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of
   Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and
   secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best
   quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which
   the points at issue between the two parties were carefully
   defined."

      _J. A. Symonds,
      History of Graubünden
      (in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33)._

   During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
   with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
   red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
   every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
   arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
   fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
   The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
   detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
   victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
   forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
   under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
   Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
   Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
   princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
   low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
   and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
{3046}
   The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
   Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
   to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
   name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
   France."

      _W. Menzel,
      History of Germany,
      chapter 191 (volume 2)._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.
   Defeat of Charles the Bold.

      See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.

SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
   Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
   Threatened rupture.
   The Convention of Stanz.
   Enlargement of the Confederacy.
   Its loose and precarious constitution.

   "In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in
   extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle
   and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the
   country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed
   to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no
   fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,
   who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even
   share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of
   contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had
   for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and
   Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal
   governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to
   the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves
   in the minority, refused again and again to admit these
   cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,
   and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each
   other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a
   compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which
   they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the
   League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this
   point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to
   destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and
   Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was
   strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from
   side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward
   reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th
   of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like
   romance, so great was the transformation which took place in
   the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about
   to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an
   agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of
   Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in
   contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided
   according to the number of men sent into war, but new
   acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the
   states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was
   preserved and the idea of popular representation received its
   first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In
   another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn
   were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In
   1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,
   which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most
   desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of
   Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying
   territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,
   and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership
   of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the
   confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different
   relationships, other territories and cities more or less under
   its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied
   Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were
   attached to the central body not as equal members, but as
   friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began
   almost with the formation of the league, and gradually
   extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the
   Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the
   separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and
   several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so
   distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the
   confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject
   territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was
   administered by various members of the league in partnership.
   These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture
   of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the
   16th century nearly all the territory now included in
   Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.
   Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and
   allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the
   18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ
   of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled
   to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss
   Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In
   these they were interested as partners in a business
   corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented
   complete rupture on several critical occasions."

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
      chapter 1._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
   Defeat by the French at Marignano.
   Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.

      See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.
   Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
   Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
   The spreading of the Reformation.
   Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
   Differences between the Swiss Reformers
   and the German Protestants.
   The Conference at Marburg.
   Civil war among the Cantons.
   Death of Zwingli.

   From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only
   gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was
   reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that
   city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.
   Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of
   them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only
   partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons
   it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From
   the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the
   degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral
   peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral
   life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and
   enlightenment.
{3047}
   Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,
   coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had
   abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],
   that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought
   with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far
   was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a
   majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for
   suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling
   that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders
   that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their
   territories; consequently he kept away from the great
   convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm
   between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length
   formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and
   some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the
   other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with
   Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed
   religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond
   bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,
   Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.
   His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,
   God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at
   Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks
   to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to
   the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some
   day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they
   would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,
   subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.
   The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler
   Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got
   hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it
   on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group
   of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the
   whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A
   peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the
   Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted
   to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'
   (1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet
   into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a
   scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of
   transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was
   by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his
   usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in
   his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and
   republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for
   a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss
   Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the
   impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against
   the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political
   leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to
   meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of
   reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was
   attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief
   leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,
   but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well
   known, or rather through his determination to approve of no
   man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.
   Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This
   is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or
   symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home
   politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,
   anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole
   republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest
   district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was
   indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war
   was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a
   stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,
   but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy
   and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in
   the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded
   from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily
   guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished
   Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A
   second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the
   positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe
   four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come
   to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,
   recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from
   treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly
   opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his
   friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the
   coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with
   the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched
   comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the
   reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.
   Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,
   worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
      History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
      books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4)._

      _L. von Ranke,
      History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3)._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
   Religious divisions and conflicts.
   Annexations of territory.
   Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
   The coming of Protestant refugees.
   Industrial progress.
   Peace.

   "A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
   principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
   now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
   State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
   Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
   reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
   Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
   each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
   presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
   clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
   became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
   more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
   endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
   the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
   extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
   country divided between many governments, which the princes of
   Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
   but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
   century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
   Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
{3048}
   Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
   of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
   city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
   Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
   treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
   of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
   That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
   acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
   appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
   the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
   provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
   annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
   ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
   inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
   liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
   Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
   conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
   and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
   A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
   and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
   was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
   acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
   county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
   impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
   of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
   cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
   reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
   insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
   ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
   his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
   two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
   the rest.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

   The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been
   momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to
   belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,
   however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The
   Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with
   their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained
   secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might
   now have added further to its power by admitting new members
   to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.
   The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made
   it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without
   hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was
   pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later
   the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which
   the city had become the centre, refused the request. She
   remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always
   ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.
   Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to
   political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the
   rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a
   hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of
   Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the
   Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the
   Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their
   neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress
   that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was
   due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of
   foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service
   gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade
   resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought
   by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of
   weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of
   watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost
   abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into
   the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another
   century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the
   Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven
   into war."

      C. F. Johnstone,
      Historical Abstracts,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Zschokke,
      History of Switzerland,
      chapters 33-41._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.
   Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.

         See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
   The Catholic revival and rally.
   The Borromean or Golden League.

   "Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival
   was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew
   of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was
   canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the
   Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,
   constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to
   the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the
   Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread
   of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He
   called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,
   where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the
   Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in
   1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,
   the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the
   reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the
   same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of
   Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in
   Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the
   rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed
   themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the
   hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this
   way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss
   peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the
   semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the
   Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the
   Jesuits, before 1630."

      _Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
      Switzerland, chapter 25._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
   The Peace of Westphalia.
   Acknowledged independence and
   separation from the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

{3049}

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
   The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
   Religious conflicts.
   Battles of Villmergen.
   The Peace of Aarau.

   "About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in
   all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong
   discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of
   the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of
   serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and
   that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for
   his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the
   taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their
   liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired
   with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on
   the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper
   coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,
   a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley
   on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,
   however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they
   yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there
   were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by
   the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a
   second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing
   less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten
   cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and
   the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an
   assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose
   Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their
   purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To
   this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of
   purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.
   Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy
   to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For
   a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where
   they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small
   cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near
   Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight
   ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This
   battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No
   sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the
   smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the
   clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of
   Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure
   their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their
   cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched
   troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners
   to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless
   that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,
   1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and
   were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon
   afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much
   as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted
   only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale
   than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first
   years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the
   outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in
   nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the
   country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over
   these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.
   In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by
   Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by
   questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and
   called the people his serfs, in order that they might become
   so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of
   the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there
   was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to
   these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered
   them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road
   through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they
   turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they
   took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked
   by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the
   pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th
   of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the
   battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the
   Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and
   2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a
   general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage
   of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to
   yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate
   Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the
   Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became
   equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once
   more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with
   improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful
   protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long
   in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years
   from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither
   foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the
   different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited
   stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.
   Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept
   people of the same canton and village apart, until the
   building which their forefathers had raised in the early days
   of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like
   a house of cards, at the first blow from France."

      _H. D. S. Mackenzie,
      Switzerland,
      chapters 15-16._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Zschokke,
      History of Switzerland,
      chapters 42-56._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
   The ferment of the French Revolution.
   Invasion and subjugation by the French.
   Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
   Formation of the Helvetic Republic.

   "The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,
   battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and
   assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.
   … Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the
   Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the
   danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the
   government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in
   view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the
   shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the
   contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they
   had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their
   everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,
   cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …
   All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,
   Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy
   assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.
{3050}
   Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such
   proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to
   put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by
   wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an
   armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.
   More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her
   indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign
   countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had
   been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word
   or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and
   freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed
   the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased
   the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that
   Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a
   desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to
   Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the
   treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find
   cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …
   Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon
   Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the
   forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many
   battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,
   conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took
   the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.
   He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the
   subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw
   this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring
   Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For
   their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.
   But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and
   equal rights to these people, they may be your
   fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;
   decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period
   for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and
   impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the
   Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of
   Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards
   also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto
   been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was
   added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.
   … Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the
   frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They
   had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient
   treaties. But report said that the French intended to
   overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves
   masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in
   a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the
   cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for
   itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of
   French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg
   they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,
   accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of
   Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they
   could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and
   Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to
   themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and
   promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of
   the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come
   for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received
   into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:
   'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms
   and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.
   Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops
   to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but
   discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the
   very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light
   troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th
   March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the
   future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no
   more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free
   state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian
   republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,
   shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in
   general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,
   judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall
   elect the general government; the government shall appoint the
   cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was
   divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose
   the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,
   Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united
   in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of
   Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in
   the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the
   Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed
   new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited
   to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly
   parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated
   with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied
   heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons
   of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated
   in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the
   mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original
   confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our
   fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will
   not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought
   valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but
   unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on
   the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a
   long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French
   troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven
   back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000
   of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously
   also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the
   strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They
   made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the
   Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the
   Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in
   seventy-four days it was dissolved."

      _H. Zschokke,
      The History of Switzerland,
      chapters 57 and 60._

{3051}

   "A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than
   that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal
   governments, against the monasteries, and against private
   individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted
   upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,
   was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political
   rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for
   the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single
   national government, composed, like that of France, of a
   Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and
   districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in
   government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a
   level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought
   with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which
   they had inherited from their fathers; but they were
   compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming
   force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even
   now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole
   purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the
   invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The
   magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the
   word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length
   an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a
   condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French
   army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a
   handful of peasants met the French army at the village of
   Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September
   8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.
   Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:
   slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this
   so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."

      _C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

   "Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of
   the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long
   been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it
   was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for
   accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded
   a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the
   Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was
   unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small
   corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and
   the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed
   to a union with the conquering Republic."

      _Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 25 (volume 6)._

      ALSO IN:
      _A. Thiers,
      History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
      volume 4, pages 248-252._

      _Mallet du Pan,
      Memoirs and Correspondence,
      volume 2, chapters 13-14._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.
   Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
   Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.

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

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
   Campaign of the French against the Russians.
   Battle of Zurich.
   Carnage in the city.
   Suwarrow's retreat.

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

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.
   Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.
   Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
   Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
   Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
   the Congress of Vienna.
   Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
   The Federal Pact of 1815.
   The Sonderbund and Civil War.
   The Federal Constitution of 1848.

   "Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and
   after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on
   the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of
   Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had
   been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now
   consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.
   The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,
   Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the
   Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to
   each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only
   vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,
   however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who
   represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants
   possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The
   Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,
   Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which
   these were the capitals becoming successively directing
   Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of
   the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of
   Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation
   was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland
   could become entirely independent there was to be one more
   foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought
   with it the destruction of his work in that country, the
   neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the
   Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon
   condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new
   Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the
   Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel
   (which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been
   bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which
   had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but
   was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition
   of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to
   the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of
   Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were
   guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and
   Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.
   Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in
   1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The
   Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,
   drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the
   Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,
   and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a
   return to the state of things previous to the French
   Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of
   their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation
   and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental
   vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The
   Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies
   instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the
   Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians
   of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the
   ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the
   beginning of the century, and the power of the people was
   greatly increased.
{3052}
   In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and
   Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,
   some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847
   there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To
   political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau
   the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made
   to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half
   Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution
   the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to
   creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus
   giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent
   arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants
   of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of
   Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was
   the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the
   confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result
   of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the
   Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the
   chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years
   later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic
   Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret
   conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in
   danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were
   laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.
   Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a
   violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the
   Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in
   favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the
   direction of superior public education, and this led to
   hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.
   Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the
   expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and
   finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July
   1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of
   persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons
   had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,
   abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all
   modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently
   not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the
   deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was
   declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between
   the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of
   25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,
   under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small
   Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an
   end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became
   necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."

      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation,
      chapter 1._

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.
   Annexation of the Valais to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.
   Educational reforms.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
      SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
   The existing Federal Constitution.

   On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the
   task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was
   confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was
   finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted
   to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half;
   others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was
   finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th
   September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the
   Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for
   the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely
   the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its
   authors had studied that of the United States. … It was
   natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were
   developed, and as the differences between the legislation of
   the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the
   first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary.
   This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of
   a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers,
   were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th
   May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and
   by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no
   means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more
   acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was
   adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013.
   The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision,
   14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears
   date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and
   altered in certain particulars."

      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation,
      chapter 1._

   "Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
   of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
   states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
   front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
   amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
   division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
   slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
   legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
   is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
   self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
   also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
   education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
   the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
   head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
   Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
   fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
   or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
   comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
   is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
   limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
   legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
   extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
   to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
   power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
   the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
   Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
   disability from crime or bankruptcy.
{3053}
   The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
   alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
   decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
   100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
   considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
   determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
   new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
   such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
   voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
   political and administrative power of the Canton. It
   corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
   inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
   Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
   'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
   three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
   Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
   cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
   … The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
   together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
   Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
   which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
   'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
   House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
   Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
   Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
   Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
   the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
   electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
   Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
   representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
   as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
   but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is
   not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
   demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
   the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
   bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
   their representatives is called Das Referendum. …

      See REFERENDUM.

   The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the
   Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the
   Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by
   the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …
   The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen
   by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath
   for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is
   exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the
   Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."

      _P. Hauri,
      Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
      (in Strickland's "The Engadine")._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
      The Swiss Confederation._

      _J. M. Vincent,
      State and Federal Government in Switzerland._

      _Old South Leaflets,
      general series, number 18._

      _University of Pennsylvania,
      Publications, number 8._

   For the text of the Swiss Constitution,

      See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.
   Exclusion of Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.

   The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile
   Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest
   census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was
   2,917,740.

   ----------SWITZERLAND: End--------

SWORD, German Order of the.

   See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.

SWORD, Swedish Order of the.

   An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after
   long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.

SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.

      See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.

SYBARIS.
SYBARITES.

   Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by
   Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in
   southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two
   rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter
   borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about
   twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal
   contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of
   Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had
   subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told
   that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against
   Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which
   have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon
   little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and
   extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become
   proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes
   illustrating these qualities were current, and served more
   than one purpose in antiquity."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.

   Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,
   in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The
   Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,
   intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were
   drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.

      _Thucydides,
      History,
      book 1, section 46._

SYCOPHANTS.

   "Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose
   to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain
   to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular
   trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing
   their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These
   denunciations were particularly directed against those who
   were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who
   therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished
   to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active
   guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies
   were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators
   persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,
   envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full
   assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The
   Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.
   … They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money
   from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt
   free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution
   beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.

{3054}

SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

SYLLA.

      See SULLA.

SYLLABARIES.

   "A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and
   grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic
   student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of
   characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian
   and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by
   them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was
   frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,
   these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of
   the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and
   not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in
   the decipherment of the inscriptions."

      _A. H. Sayce,
      Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,
      chapter 4._

SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.

SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.

SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.

SYMMACHIA.

   An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so
   called by the Greeks.

SYMMORIÆ, The.

   "In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)
   the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or
   companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the
   property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details
   of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint
   liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of
   individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their
   collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those
   taxes which were not received at the proper time to be
   advanced by the most wealthy citizens."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of the Athenians
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 4, chapter 9._

SYMPOSIUM.

   The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast
   which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which
   was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of
   dancing, etc.

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      Course 2, lecture 5._

SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.

      See SANHEDRIM.

SYNOECIA.

      See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

   ----------SYRACUSE: Start--------

SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.
   The Founding of the city.

   "Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,
   under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the
   ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his
   country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had
   excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower
   rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of
   other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most
   considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was
   founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly
   from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth
   settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built
   Agrigentum."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 12_.

   The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.
   "Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated
   from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was
   bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn
   in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small
   part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the
   vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed
   alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the
   present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the
   same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another
   advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a
   spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its
   fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the
   abundance and goodness of its water."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 22._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.
   Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.

      See SICILY: B. C. 480.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
   Siege by the Athenians.

   The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and
   built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the
   deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian
   Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many
   reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,
   as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and
   arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual
   jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in
   their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought
   them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,
   enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the
   Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.
   The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of
   the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the
   people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,
   into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians
   were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a
   naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without
   any marked success. The result was to produce among the
   Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led
   them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not
   long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely
   destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had
   before received into her alliance, claimed help against
   Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.
   416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,
   whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints
   of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought
   about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking
   of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the
   Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any
   Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415
   the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the
   Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It
   consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and
   transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian
   slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.
   On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement
   among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave
   the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.
{3055}
   Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about
   a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation
   of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the
   accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became
   the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed
   before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt
   against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was
   successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army
   was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter
   quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a
   siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and
   on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised
   well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.
   But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their
   favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal
   to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more
   vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and
   Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up
   a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in
   defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation
   was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the
   besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help
   and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long
   winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the
   capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too
   late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,
   from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,
   had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full
   of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,
   on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able
   to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them
   in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on
   account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a
   final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an
   implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a
   hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more
   tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of
   Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the
   division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the
   pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded
   with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river
   Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,
   although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were
   imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great
   numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow
   place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and
   suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the
   autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature
   engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had
   to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who
   died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,
   lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and
   they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.
   During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint
   of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which
   could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the
   condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length
   the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians
   and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them
   in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not
   accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all
   the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed
   of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the
   greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to
   the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points
   defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army
   perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of
   the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the
   Sicilian expedition."

      _Thucydides,
      History
      (translated by Jowett),
      books 6-7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      volume 3._

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 58-60._

      _Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
   Dionysius and the Carthaginians.

   Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
   the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
   capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
   escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
   meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
   Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
   upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
   the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
   people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
   sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
   fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
   increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
   Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
   which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
   took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
   and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
   this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
   commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
   recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
   Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
   gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
   escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
   reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
   subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
   Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
   fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
   was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
   numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
   description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
   was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
   land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
   But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
   themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
   them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
   latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
   huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
   sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
   that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
   aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
   bodies.
{3056}
   The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
   prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
   progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
   themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
   Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
   In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
   his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
   escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
   in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
   394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
   Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
   As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
   himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
   prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
   among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
   but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 82._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
   Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.

   "The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to
   have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it
   increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many
   difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with
   a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them
   the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,
   driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out
   by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for
   dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it
   back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from
   Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of
   settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at
   Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by
   men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on
   further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel
   towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of
   commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the
   Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most
   powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him
   Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and
   cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,
   and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at
   Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.
   Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians
   also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,
   seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from
   Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,
   and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one
   of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.
   "Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He
   commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the
   north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said
   to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger
   share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned
   his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took
   Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,
   "beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in
   Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios
   sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.
   "Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of
   the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his
   chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all
   defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid
   tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be
   recited; but the crowd would not hear them."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      The Story of Sicily,
      chapter 10._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.
   War with Carthage.

      See SICILY: B. C. 383.

SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
   Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.

   The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
   from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
   Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
   in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
   succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
   nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
   shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
   largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
   brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
   several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
   his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
   Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
   a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
   was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
   began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
   Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
   After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
   Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
   The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
   friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
   city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
   entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
   protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
   ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
   surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
   treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
   Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
   himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
   He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
   philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
   misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
   bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
   ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
   from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
   he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
   Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
   himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
   something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
   Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
   half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
   presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
   place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
   returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
   condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
   Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
   great city seemed likely to perish.
{3057}
   At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
   sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
   Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
   to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
   1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
   history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
   Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
   noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
   an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
   who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
   become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
   which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
   enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
   Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
   in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
   such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
   fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
   fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
   stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
   justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
   then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
   immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
   revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
   cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
   Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
   great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
   narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
   Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
   resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
   simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
   to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapters 84-85._

      ALSO IN:
      _Plutarch,
      Timoleon._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
   Under Agathokles.

   A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the
   brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated
   Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse
   despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who
   rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,
   acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the
   command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained
   a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned
   them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),
   for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke
   open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,
   massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.
   They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,
   not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For
   two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,
   rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000
   citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as
   prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as
   the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested
   the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of
   his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the
   rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is
   stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,
   Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by
   acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in
   extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After
   some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,
   and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).
   Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder
   tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the
   war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that
   the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and
   confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly
   beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,
   were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and
   Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his
   successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four
   years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape
   from the difficulties of his situation except by basely
   stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed
   by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.
   Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous
   abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power
   and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of
   Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in
   289 B. C.

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 97._

SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.
   Siege by the Romans.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
   Sacked by Franks.

   The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the
   invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,
   removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,
   on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians
   soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of
   vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,
   plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the
   west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies
   of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a
   handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the
   trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the
   escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and
   reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the
   delta of the Rhine.

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 12._

SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.
   Siege and capture by the Saracens.

      See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.

   ----------SYRACUSE: End--------

SYRIA.

   "Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the
   Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the
   latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land
   varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up
   by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been
   brought under one native government; yet its well-defined
   boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,
   and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and
   separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,
   therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of
   Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse
   process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first
   the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland
   to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,
   was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the
   Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank
   to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits
   drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …
   The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …

      See SEMITES.

{3058}

   Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human
   race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and
   exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has
   to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt
   and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent
   of Syria. …

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].

   The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and
   the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.
   Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,
   the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.
   When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a
   province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

   At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.
   The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem
   invasion of the seventh century.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639

   She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh
   [century].

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;

   And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept
   through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and
   races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,
   Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.

   She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of
   the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all
   over by their essentially Greek civilisation.

      See SELEUCIDÆ;
      and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.

   Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
   this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.

      See ROME: B. C. 69-63;
      and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,
      and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

   The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of
   her for a century more. …

      See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].

   Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition
   towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was
   decided on her plains, 1799.

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

   Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number
   of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to
   plant upon her both their civilisation and her former
   religion."

      _George Adam Smith,
      Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
      book 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. R. Conder,
      Syrian Stone Lore._

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 4, chapter 9._

      See, also, DAMASCUS.

SYRIA, CŒLE.

      See CŒLE-SYRIA.

SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.

      See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.

   These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or
   rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply
   indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater
   Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the
   Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.

SYSSITIA, The.

   "The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the
   usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the
   citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The
   origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however
   from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but
   existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the
   Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in
   common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was
   provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who
   shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means
   reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who
   was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.
   The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen
   persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous
   consent was required for every election. No member, not even
   the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some
   extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened
   chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:
   such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapters 7-8._

SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.

SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.

      See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

T

TABELLARIÆ, Leges.

   "For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were
   given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was
   introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.
   C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were
   named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in
   all four, namely:

   1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.
   2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.
   3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.
   4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."

      _W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 4._

TABLES, The.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

TABORITES, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

TABREEZ, Battle of.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

TACHIES, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.

TACNA, Battle of (1880).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

TACULLIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).

   Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and
   having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a
   small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl
   of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after
   obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters
   of the great English Civil War.

      _C. R. Markham,
      Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
      chapter 8._

{3059}

TADMOR.

      See PALMYRA.

TAENSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.

TAEXALI, The.

   A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient
   Caledonia.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.

      See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.

      See DEMIURGI.

TAIFALÆ, The.

   In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the
   province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are
   first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291
   (Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations
   are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.
   31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of
   the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that
   they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they
   were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,
   one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus
   (xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in
   their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of
   the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in
   the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and
   their district Theiphalia."

      _W. Smith,
      Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 26._

TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.

   Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item
   in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English
   word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property
   of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the
   amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell
   chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with
   the most exact and honest system it should be accurately
   apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose
   and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed
   others; they released their friends or their villages, and
   imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large
   extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who
   had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this
   tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of
   the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth
   of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free
   from any personal tax, and under this head were probably
   included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of
   the officials of every kind, and the members of many
   professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained
   exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,
   which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and
   peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of
   11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of
   France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000
   were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was
   the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast
   amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was
   farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was
   increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to
   collect its proceeds. The French government retained a
   monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of
   tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of
   necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that
   salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In
   some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000
   per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty
   times its present price in France, though it is still subject
   to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal
   exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject
   to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and
   several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling
   subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this
   duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the
   gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local
   insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also
   necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.
   As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the
   commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount
   of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they
   were forced to take at the price established by the
   government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000
   livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers
   probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A
   family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of
   ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this
   duty."

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 18 (volume 2)._

   "Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
   tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
   compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
   bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
   moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
   To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
   prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
   [in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
   was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
   authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
   200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
   smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
   death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
   impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
   livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
   it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
   to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
   supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
   regulations that one might suppose the object of the
   Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
   But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
   amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
   Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
   situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
   provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
   were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
   made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
   the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
   apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
   the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
   remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
   without a flash of indignation.
{3060}
   First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
   presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
   a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
   the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
   fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
   neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
   it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
   this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
   inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
   rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
   responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
   might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
   or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
   enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
   farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
   keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
   visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
   imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
   of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
   pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
   of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
   on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
   a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
   beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
   of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
   for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
   be thought of."

      _J. C. Morison,
      The Reign of Louis XIV.
      (Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21)._

   Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both
   the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the
   gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their
   distribution and collection were much lessened.

      _H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

   For an intimation of the origin of the taille,

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.

TAIPING REBELLION, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

TAJ MAHAL, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.

TAKBIR, The.

   The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."

TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.

TALAJOTS.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

TALAVERA, Battle of.

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

TALCA, Battle of (1818).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.

   "Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,
   even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic
   origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina
   at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the
   obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven
   lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in
   general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter
   obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller
   pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic
   silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be
   1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the
   drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent
   to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …
   Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also
   the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was
   weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73
   ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very
   little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later
   times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of
   Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in
   the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The
   new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared
   with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the
   light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;
   so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic
   drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless
   the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was
   related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is
   to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but
   it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …
   contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,
   and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from
   the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman
   pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan
   as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the
   Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued
   in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate
   valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are
   equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given
   the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round
   numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more
   accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was
   estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was
   undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a
   weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared
   with silver, always depended upon the existing relation
   between them, was sometimes thus called."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 1, chapters 4-5._

      See, also, SHEKEL.

TALLAGE, The.

   "Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came
   a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],
   which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and
   the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices
   after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important
   of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of
   the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected
   other property besides land, but the particular method in
   which it was to be collected was determined by the community
   on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the
   justices."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1)._

TALLEYRAND, Prince de:
   Alienation from Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.

TALLIGEWI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

{3061}

TALMUD, The.

   "The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a
   vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,
   discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated
   of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic
   arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;
   a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically
   referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud
   proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of
   two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …
   The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of
   the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …
   The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it
   sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi
   [Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the
   Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly
   the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The
   Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the
   Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the
   West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the
   traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is
   about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far
   the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks
   relate."

      _P. I. Hershon,
      Talmudic Miscellany,
      introduction._

   The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed
   at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more
   earlier.

      See, also, MISCHNA.

TALUKDARS.

   "A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many
   villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.
   These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid
   their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native
   Government in former times made over by patent, to a person
   called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him
   responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence
   thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,
   independent. … When the country came under British rule,
   engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken
   from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."

      _Sir R. Temple,
      James Thomason,
      page 158._

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

TAMANES, Battle of.

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

TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.

TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.

TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.

      See TIMOUR.

TAMMANY RING, The.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TAMMANY SOCIETY.
TAMMANY HALL.

   "Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the
   city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It
   was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing
   an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That
   society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in
   its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its
   constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General
   Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend
   to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an
   order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to
   have had in view the preservation of our democratic
   institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was
   founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city
   of New York, some time in the administration of President
   Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that
   early day, regarded the powers of the general government as
   dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to
   the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the
   country with institutions designed, and men determined, to
   preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic
   and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,
   that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous
   were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a
   holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in
   its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter
   part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"
   from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be
   hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany
   supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and
   they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few
   others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were
   reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.
   From this time it became a political institution, and took
   ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"

      _J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      volume 1, chapter 18._

   "The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,
   the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of
   the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint
   of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,
   each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There
   were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the
   council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type
   evidently of the President of the United States."

      _R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 3._

   "Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the
   'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was
   composed at first of the moderate men of both political
   parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party
   institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William
   Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was
   William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received
   the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt
   Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a
   national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and
   had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own
   country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its
   incorporation."

      _Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, page 362, foot-note._

   "One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
   Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
   shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
   building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
   leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
   General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
   commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
   means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
   where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
   the political body officially known as the Democratic
   Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
{3062}
   The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
   districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
   assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
   assembly districts there is held annually an election of
   members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
   Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
   no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
   allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
   Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
   presidential election. Thus the number of the General
   Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
   sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
   General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
   the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
   a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
   He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
   thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
   executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
   a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
   organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
   selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
   General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
   constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
   a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
   election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
   containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
   This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
   is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
   the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
   unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
   is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
   committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
   divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
   are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
   district containing about four hundred voters. The election
   districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
   has a district committee, composed of the members of the
   General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
   additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
   committee appoints in each of the election districts included
   in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
   the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
   responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
   about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
   consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
   bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
   committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
   a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
   falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
   another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
   actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
   selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
   fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
   captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
   dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
   is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
   distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
   street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
   captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
   voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
   every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
   report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
   district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
   accuracy what will be the vote of the city."

      _H. C. Merwin,
      Tammany Hall
      (Atlantic, February, 1894)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Home,
      The Story of Tammany
      (Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835)._

TAMULS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.

TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

TANAIM, The.

   A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted
   themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews,
      book 19._

TANAIS, The.

   The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
   Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'

TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.

TANCRED'S CRUSADE.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.

TANEY, Roger B.,
   and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

   The Dred Scott Decision.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.

TANIS.

      See ZOAN.

TANISTRY, Law of.

   "These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even
   the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very
   different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They
   were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is
   defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of
   chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the
   same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,
   synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference
   given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to
   desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a
   perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish
   are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have
   been devised."

      _H. Hallam,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 18 (volume 3)._

      See, also, TUATH.

TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TANOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.

TANTALIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS.

TAOUISM.

      See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

TAPÆ, Battles at.

      See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TAPPANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

TAPROBANE.

   The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the
   ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not
   merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._

{3063}

TAPURIANS, The.

   "To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the
   Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the
   modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at
   the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.

   The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a
   triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which
   is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh
   Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.
   "All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and
   military leaders throughout the country were regularly
   summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of
   being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a
   large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in
   enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the
   entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and
   glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these
   occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business
   transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,
   and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or
   arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take
   his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound
   of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great
   solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,
   or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but
   it would appear that one of its principal functions was the
   inspection of the national records, the writers of which were
   obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest
   penalties."

      _M. Haverty,
      History of Ireland,
      page 24._

   The result of the examination and correction of the historical
   records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national
   register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have
   been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is
   supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,
   which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was
   copied from it."

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

TARANTEENS,
TARENTINES,
TARRATINES.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TARAS.

      See TARENTUM.

TARASCANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.

TARBELLI, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TARENTINE WAR, The.

      See Rome: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM.

   Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek
   cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf
   which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,
   almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its
   form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,
   the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land
   side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus
   advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She
   possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens
   found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which
   the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to
   man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.
   Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was
   the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,
   soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring
   an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian
   Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs
   the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war
   under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the
   enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours
   among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When
   the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown
   up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the
   Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted
   their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their
   own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._

      See, also, SIRIS.

TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.
   Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

TARENTUM: B. C. 212.
   Betrayed to Hannibal.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TARENTUM, Treaty of.

   The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
   triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
   Tarentum, B. C. 37.

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 27._

TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

TARIFA: A. D. 1291.
   Taken by the Christians from the Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.

   ----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------

TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.
   Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.

   In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
   English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
   relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
   this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
   what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
   neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
   passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
   to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
   clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
   might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
   the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
   of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
   competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
   ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
   suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
   government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
   afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
   competition were viewed.
{3064}
   But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
   sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
   reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
   no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
   English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
   something else that they would buy from them. Among other
   articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
   skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
   in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
   costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
   regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
   of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
   Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
   of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
   England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
   fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
   assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
   value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
   Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
   respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
   be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
   other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
   confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
   piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
   survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
   the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
   year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
   founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
   the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
   been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
   and its different results began to appear. Not only were
   strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
   Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
   induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
   wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."

      _W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267._

TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
   Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.

      See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
   The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.
   The System of Colbert.

   Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
   statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
   consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
   his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
   every kind. Although this system was far from being
   irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
   the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
   which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
   It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
   gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
   This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
   way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
   and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
   of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
   taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
   principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
   have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
   science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
   to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
   what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
   sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
   import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
   and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
   the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
   in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
   concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
   for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
   regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
   we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
   import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
   considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
   the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
   Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
   [see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
   cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
   manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
   survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
   only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
   land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
   were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
   merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
   with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
   delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
   ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
   most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
   lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
   improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
   fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
   of his administration, we think we should present it in its
   true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
   misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
   make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
   the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
   were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
   upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
   home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
   sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
   manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
   skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
   subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
   should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
   fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
   recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
   the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
   attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
   manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
   himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
   led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
   his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
   what was cruel in them.
{3065}
   Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
   directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
   information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
   manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
   was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
   and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
   since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
   engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
   they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
   efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
   to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
   prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
   administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
   convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
   tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
   extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
   vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
   to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
   honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
   of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
   ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
   certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
   been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
   having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
   He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
   memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
   provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
   duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
   repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
   duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
   September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
   supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
   of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
   by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
   frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
   him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
   created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
   measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
   1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
   war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
   From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
   reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
   to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
   Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
   languish in France under the influence of this system."

      _J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy in Europe,
      chapter 26._

      ALSO IN,
      _H. Martin,
      History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _J. B. Perkins,
      France under the Regency,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
   Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.

   "Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
   impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
   South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
   Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
   however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
   Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
   sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
   imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
   Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
   sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
   In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
   appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
   and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
   wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
   willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
   of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
   merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
   interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
   repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
   the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
   were made for their collection. September 20, came the
   important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
   this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
   which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
   which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
   specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
   clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
   6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
   boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
   hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
   manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
   papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
   Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
   of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
   as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."

      _W. Hill,
      First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
      pages 53-54._

   The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
   reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
   arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
   Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
   considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
   war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
   when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
   and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
   mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
   need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
   implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
   the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
   oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
   whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
   other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
   peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
   here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
   useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
   making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
   moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
   imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
   relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
   manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
   purpose. Be it enacted" &c.

      _Pennsylvania Laws, 1785._

   The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
   impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
   on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
   ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
   same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
   would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
   but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.

{3066}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
   The first tariff enactment.
   Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
   The "American System" proposed.

   "The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
   the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
   It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
   Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
   the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
   towards the protective system. But this legislation was
   temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
   system of the country was left for subsequent and more
   leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
   the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
   furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
   congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
   series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
   kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
   United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
   took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
   mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
   two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
   passed that he sent in the document to the House of
   Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
   able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
   been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
   report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
   abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
   assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
   was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
   commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
   predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
   that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
   find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
   rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
   to say that the United States would find it for her interest
   to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
   had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
   the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
   resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
   manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
   principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
   those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
   the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
   former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
   withstand."

      _J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Life of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 11._

   Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
   to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
   country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
   of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
   United States, accompanied with an examination of the
   principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
   it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
   which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
   of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
   most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
   which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
   order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
   to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
   which have been employed with success in other countries. The
   principle of these are:

   I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
   which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
   encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
   virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
   charges on foreign articles they enable the national
   manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
   propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
   upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
   topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
   laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
   the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
   Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
   with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
   contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
   wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
   country.

   II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
   prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
   encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
   employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
   in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
   adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
   prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
   States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
   be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
   Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
   manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
   a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
   proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
   principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
   endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
   advantages.

   III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
   manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
   supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
   either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
   the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
   nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
   species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
   in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
   be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
   cases.

   IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
   efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
   some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
   upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
   on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
   could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
   by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
   these:

   1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
   than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
   tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
   the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
   the first attempts.

{3067}

   2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
   price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
   it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
   charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
   protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
   happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
   different object (which may or may not increase the price of
   some other article according to the nature of that object);
   the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
   object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
   foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
   have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
   bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
   raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
   in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
   source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
   because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
   it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
   the total quantity of the article in the market.

   3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
   to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
   immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
   does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
   of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
   the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
   discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
   expected from the sale of the article.

   4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
   proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
   of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
   the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
   material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
   foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
   manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
   to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
   quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
   laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
   promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
   farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
   destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
   article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
   conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
   and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
   for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
   vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
   been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
   importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
   production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
   in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
   advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
   no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
   way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
   foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
   desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
   duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
   material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
   both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
   commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
   attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
   the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
   it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
   material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
   from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
   immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
   serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
   community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
   serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
   can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
   new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
   valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
   productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
   equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
   admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
   article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
   expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
   manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
   the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
   which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
   wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
   by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
   noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
   in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
   United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
   the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
   great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
   charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
   amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
   bulk. …

   V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
   distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
   are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
   manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
   Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
   superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
   dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
   to stimulate general effort. …

   VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
   The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
   in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …

   VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
   materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
   general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
   certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
   cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
   material is itself an object of general or extensive
   consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
   Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
   of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
   restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
   being capable by a further process to be converted into a
   manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
   which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
   itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
   abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
   national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
   manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
   competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
   which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
   materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
   rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
   …

{3068}

   VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
   home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
   as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
   which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
   unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
   manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
   pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …

   IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
   commodities. This is not among the least important of the
   means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
   It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
   Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
   exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
   preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
   fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
   to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
   quarters. …

   X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
   place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
   and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
   purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
   manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
   which is to be expected from the institution lately
   established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …

   XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
   Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
   domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
   impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
   manufactures. …

   The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
   growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
   not merely necessary that the measures of government which
   have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
   assist and protect them; but that those which only
   collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
   administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
   to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
   apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
   among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
   manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
   They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
   unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
   vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
   assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
   liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
   occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
   supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
   to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."

      _A. Hamilton,
      Report on Manufactures
      (Works, volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff._

      _R. W. Thompson,
      History of Protective Tariff Laws,
      chapters 6-7._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
   The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
   The sliding-scale.

   During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
   period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
   There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
   were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801
   wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
   1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
   1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
   starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
   and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
   well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
   as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
   reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
   Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
   importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
   the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
   country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
   compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
   therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
   to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
   Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
   excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
   the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
   kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
   prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
   great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
   the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
   to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
   and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
   many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
   intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
   The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
   lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
   was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
   and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
   or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
   legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
   people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
   with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
   ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
   House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
   most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
   by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
   up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
   were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
   that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
   called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
   Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
   London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
   parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
   popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
   meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
   of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
   localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
   meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
   submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
   however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
   and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
   most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
   the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
   sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
   English market.
{3069}
   The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
   the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
   shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
   the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
   qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
   8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
   found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
   operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
   effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
   law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
   quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
   at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
   paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
   until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
   expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
   injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
   or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
   Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
   however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
   Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
   Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
   Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
   be used as food, and in order to provide against any
   infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
   employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
   smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
   only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
   bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
   flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
   reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
   no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
   discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
   every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
   every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
   in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
   derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
   Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
   scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
   to be mitigated by philanthropy."

      _H. Ashworth,
      Recollections of Richard Cobden,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _D. Ricardo,
      On Protection to Agriculture
      (Works, pages 459-498)._

      _J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Economic Interpretation of History,
      chapters 17-18._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
   The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").

   "The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
   manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
   their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
   conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
   always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
   were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
   unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
   individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
   petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
   duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
   prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
   February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
   maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
   this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
   and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
   of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
   days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
   February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
   tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
   report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
   the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
   for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
   discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
   transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
   February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
   tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
   Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
   the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
   March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
   finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
   Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
   approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
   were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
   12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
   28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
   by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
   article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
   which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
   was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
   yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
   articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
   the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
   in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
   reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
   party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
   such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
   of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
   were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
   protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
   occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
   cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
   Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
   fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
   reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
   the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
   cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
   cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
   by making the first period three years and the second one
   year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
   per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
   cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
   Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
   cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
   years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
   was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
   its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
   disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
   however, were widely varied. …
{3070}
   Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
   country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
   depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
   country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
   fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
   manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
   growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
   lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
   Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
   Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
   the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
   passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
   Senate by one vote."

      _O. L. Elliott,
      The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
      (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
      pages 163-211._

   "The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
   home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
   called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
   before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
   commencement of the heated debates on that question which
   afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
   federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
   the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
   earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
   to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
   incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
   the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
   proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
   was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
   universality of the distress which had been described;
   claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
   cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
   expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
   Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
   denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
   and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
   where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
   after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
   of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
   zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
   couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
   resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
   four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
   of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
   Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
   commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
   presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
   the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
   General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
   tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
   time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN
      _A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union,
      sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12)._

      _A. Walker,
      Science of Wealth,
      page 116._

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      pages 68-76._

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 3._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
   The "Bill of Abominations."
   New England changes front.

   "In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
   many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
   It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
   which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
   Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
   important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
   pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
   this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
   account of the startling change of position which it
   announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
   the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
   been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
   to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
   was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
   manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
   commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
   told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
   taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
   afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
   urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
   when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
   war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
   of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
   settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
   England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
   of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
   make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
   Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
   will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
   the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
   that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
   for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
   changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
   abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
   the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
   interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
   Mr. Webster followed, it."

      _H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 6._

   "There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
   that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
   as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
   country by others, and had embarked her capital in
   manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
   manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
   appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
   from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
   … May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
   Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
   growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
   July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
   the convention in order to make allies of interests which
   would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
   plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
   The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
   and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
   represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
   It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
   and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
   of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
   met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
   had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
   it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
   from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
   monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
   on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
   on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
   was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
   four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
   over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
   per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
   introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
   was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
   raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
   while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
   Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
   of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
   in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
   the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
   steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
   from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
   to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
   per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
   and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
   Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
   a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
   'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
   of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."

      _W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 9._

   "The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
   manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
   woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
   that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
   bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
   get itself along."

      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 34._

      _J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
   Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.

   President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
   attention to the fact that the public debt would be
   extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
   therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
   a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
   was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
   of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
   should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
   with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
   it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
   revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
   arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
   surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
   in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
   revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
   protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
   must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
   Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
   articles not coming into competition with American products. …
   Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
   the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
   objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
   of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
   replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
   strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
   President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
   Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
   foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
   similar articles made or produced within the United States,
   ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
   and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
   Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
   accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
   adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
   with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
   It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
   articles, but left the protective system without material
   change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
   … The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
   estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
   effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
   millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
   the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
   short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
   ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
   day."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 13 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches
      (Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
   The Southern opposition to protection.
   Nullification in South Carolina.
   The compromise tariff.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
   The Zollverein.

   "The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an
   association of states, having for its declared object to
   secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting
   states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The
   terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia
   and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be
   regarded as the basis of the association. The states now
   [1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,
   Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the
   Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and
   Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the
   three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.
   Including these three states, which have since joined the
   union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven
   millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined
   the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German
   subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two
   Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is
   about three millions more.
{3072}
   The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the
   proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen
   without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in
   the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German
   states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of
   treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not
   admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the
   league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the
   German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has
   any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in
   fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated
   states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that
   the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other
   motives which have entered largely into the causes of its
   existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect
   to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally
   pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this
   general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of
   Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an
   opportunity of extending her political influence, and
   occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in
   reality secured her predominance among the German states. To
   these inducements we regret to be obliged to add
   another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their
   manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign
   competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be
   used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign
   manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress
   of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,
   (Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the
   maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon
   perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of
   this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King
   of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to
   unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the
   federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power
   rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the
   Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not
   only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening
   states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,
   in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became
   the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the
   barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,
   however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed
   it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers
   (especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection
   against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to
   make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new
   Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford
   a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be
   regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the
   Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered
   in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They
   formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from
   five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in
   Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and
   published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They
   addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at
   Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so
   far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,
   occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two
   others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name
   of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a
   more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria
   and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff
   of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly
   so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate
   customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became
   obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.
   Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long
   time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high
   scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,
   however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List
   states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent
   publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on
   the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for
   the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a
   binding national confederation. Between that date and the
   present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of
   other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and
   some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.
   Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring
   states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,
   which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the
   two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the
   Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to
   Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and
   Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The
   revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting
   states according to the population of each state
   respectively."

      _Edinburgh Review,
      January, 1844
      (volume 79, page 108)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Krause,
      The Growth of German Unity,
      chapter 10._

      _F. List.
      National System of Political Economy,
      book 4, chapter 4._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.
   Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.

   "Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
   body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
   an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
   principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
   Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
   notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
   and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
   other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
   reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
   organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
   were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
   attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
   of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
   1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
   revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
   pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
   Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
   because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
   landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
   of life at an artificially high rate. …
{3073}
   In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
   Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
   were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
   this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
   action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
   history of every successful movement, when a section arises
   within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
   to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
   was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
   existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
   these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
   great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
   a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
   which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
   which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
   almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
   alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
   fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
   existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
   exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
   countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
   food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
   English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
   for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
   foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
   implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
   affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
   principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
   1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
   earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
   subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
   one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
   when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
   'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
   confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
   first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
   great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
   supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
   convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
   the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
   other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
   among the various associations throughout the country. This
   was the germ of what ultimately became the League."

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Robertson,
      Life and Times of John Bright,
      chapters 8 and 11-14._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
   Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
   His sliding-scale.
   His Tariff reductions.
   The first great step towards Free-Trade.

   The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in
   August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the
   opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech
   recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws
   affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It
   announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in
   England thought possible, although it was to be completed in
   little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved
   that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
   consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three
   hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally
   offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law
   League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the
   sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of
   Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was
   based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year
   with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if
   foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a
   quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term
   of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a
   quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to
   modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the
   minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;
   he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from
   50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in
   the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold
   grain back when it became dear. … So general was the
   dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured
   once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed
   8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120
   votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for
   the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than
   four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were
   easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House
   of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had
   passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been
   voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.
   Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had
   been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income
   tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports
   of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.
   "With these and with the income tax he calculated that he
   would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to
   propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and
   comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties
   to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,
   of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,
   and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly
   manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the
   tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of
   these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most
   of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a
   year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on
   foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian
   timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and
   butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,
   he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also
   diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change
   in our system of national finance had never before been
   effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by
   the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was
   debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification
   of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at
   the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little
   or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.
   Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His
   first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of
   trade."

      _F. G. Montague,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      chapter 8._

{3074}

   "Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might
   raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in
   the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles
   under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the
   fastenings and lightened the load."

      _S. Walpole,
      History of England from 1815,
      chapter 18 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _S. Walpole,
      Life of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapter 5._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
   An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
   with incidental protection.

   "There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.
   The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the
   law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.
   During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the
   country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the
   experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State
   banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept
   them several years without authority, but finally a bill had
   been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The
   time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the
   gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act
   of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at
   the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from
   some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of
   opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional
   protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was
   universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public
   revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the
   tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The
   committee on manufactures did not report to the House until
   the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill
   reported by the committee were the following:

   1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few
   exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.

   2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain
   interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances
   below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem
   duty.

   3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to
   discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,
   after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per
   cent by the Act of 1833. …

   The subject was discussed at great length by the House,
   although the time was drawing near for making the last
   reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must
   be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of
   ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff
   laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately
   passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding
   a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the
   operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra
   session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of
   the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the
   debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of
   discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if
   at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be
   raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until
   the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in
   favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the
   proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might
   be raised without interfering with distribution. The House
   having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the
   proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution
   law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the
   Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was
   introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the
   Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso
   that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,
   notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both
   Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a
   considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the
   President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional
   revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar
   to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso
   requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free
   of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,
   imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the
   President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the
   proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution
   to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the
   bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a
   long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment
   expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the
   nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next
   four years."

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 6._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
   The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
   Dissolution of the League.

   "The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,
   being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the
   interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by
   any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to
   attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to
   benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the
   mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming
   more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative
   landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds
   who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No
   change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread
   was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest
   and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the
   people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the
   League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had
   received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to
   support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily
   contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners
   exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of
   heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the
   realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and
   argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of
   Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the
   newspaper press, and were eagerly read.
{3075}
   And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert
   Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days
   of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought
   home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the
   ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all
   further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet
   council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to
   what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5
   Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in
   council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,
   and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
   grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the
   order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order
   to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;
   and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a
   modification of the existing law, including the admission at a
   nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A
   serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in
   the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only
   ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,
   Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to
   induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a
   subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so
   far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the
   cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his
   measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution
   to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her
   Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to
   smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic
   frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a
   promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed
   in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall
   Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his
   measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was
   called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government
   plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an
   immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel
   recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three
   years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that
   time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.
   per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be
   under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that
   period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.
   per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was
   received in a very different manner by the political parties
   in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the
   Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the
   opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve
   nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal
   recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the
   speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to
   his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his
   right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,
   more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'
   duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a
   majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240
   against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to
   have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider
   the straitened resources of the country as regards the first
   article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but
   by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in
   Ireland."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      part 4, chapter 4._

   "On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'
   by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at
   Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'
   task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,
   fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes
   in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in
   the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief
   Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the
   purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him
   free for life for the political service of his country."

      _H. Martineau,
      History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
      book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Taylor,
      Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
      volume 3, chapters 8-10._

      _J. Morley,
      Life of Richard Cobden,
      volume 1, chapters 15-16._

      _M. M. Trumbull,
      The Free Trade Struggle in England._

      _A. Bisset,
      Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle._

      _Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
   Lowered duties and the disputed effects.

   "In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'
   from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It
   reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of
   the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the
   Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at
   home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more
   nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the
   Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was
   higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and
   large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,
   bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in
   the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the
   government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for
   the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances
   the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates
   of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial
   crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue
   fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,
   but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up
   to the old point."

      _A. L. Perry,
      Elements of Political Economy,
      page 464._

   "The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
   conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
   challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
   1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
   the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
   hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
   consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
   healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
   reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
   Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
   carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
   the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
   of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
   what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
   interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
{3076}
   Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
   commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
   agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
   flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
   our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
   to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
   could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
   the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
   progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
   denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
   correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
   prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
   the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
   1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
   ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
   came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
   beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
   indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
   affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
   large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
   war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
   in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
   opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
   of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
   mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
   convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
   materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
   disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
   of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
   wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
   in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
   consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
   closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
   the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
   boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
   abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
   maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
   enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
   moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
   came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
   disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
   conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
   have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
   arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
   responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
   inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
   both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
   answerable."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
   Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
   The perfected tariff of Free Trade.

   "With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may
   be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection
   in this country altogether. That principle was a little
   complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the
   navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian
   colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty
   much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign
   lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made
   labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain
   continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on
   foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those
   countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
   great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that
   free labour to establish which England had but just paid so
   large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade
   became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it
   seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to
   support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to
   him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle
   so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to
   drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often
   inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,
   and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free
   Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea
   came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar
   duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves
   deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation
   against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the
   other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was
   not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
   represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour
   really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it
   was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and
   uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the
   majority of the English people could be convinced that a
   lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign
   sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
   products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and
   somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was
   allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar
   were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was
   admitted on the same terms into this country, without any
   reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
   the conditions under which it was grown."

      _J. McCarthy,
      The Epoch of Reform,
      chapter 12._

   "The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
   1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
   battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
   grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
   reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
   years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
   1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
   Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
   of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
   some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
   which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
   questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
   discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
   propose any return to the policy of protection during the
   present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
   majority of members favourable to that policy should be
   returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
   case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
   a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
   rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
{3077}
   On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
   the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
   luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
   marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
   he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
   in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
   statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
   fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
   scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
   remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
   underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
   marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
   free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
   butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
   small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
   in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
   survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
   well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
   various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
   finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
   the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
   year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
   present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
   protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
   free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
   the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
   manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
   means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
   import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
   for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
   to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
   tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
   presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
   import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
   them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
   during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.

   Not produced in England:
   Tobacco, £8,589,681;
   Tea, 4,169,233;
   Wine, 1,469,710;
   Dried Fruit, 509,234;
   Coffee, 212,002;
   Chicory, 66,739;
   Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
   Total, £15,061,270.

   Produced also in England:
   Spirits, £5,336,058;
   Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
   Beer, 3,814;
   Vinegar, 671;
   Playing Cards, 522;
   Pickles. 17;
   Malt. 6;
   Spruce, 3;
   Total, £5,346,944.

   Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above
   figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum
   levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot
   produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion
   of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to
   afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every
   shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from
   abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for
   them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much
   for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the
   £5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import
   duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise
   duties, levied internally on the produce of the British
   distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the
   same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same
   duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.
   It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit
   foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was
   burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the
   excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality
   is established, and no protection or preference whatever is
   enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the
   aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of
   British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The
   trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are
   explained in the same way. They also act as a mere
   counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British
   producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter
   no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is
   evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it
   one solitary shred of protection."

      _A. Mongredien,
      History of the Free Trade Movement in England,
      chapter 13._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Hall,
      History of the Customs Revenue of England._

      _S. Dowell,
      History of Taxation and Taxes in England._

TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
   Moderation of Protective duties.
   The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.

   After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons
   in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an
   extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.
   "The first serious attempt to alter this very severe
   restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The
   English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing
   most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,
   and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the
   work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,
   iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,
   corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for
   ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,
   however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.
   A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all
   prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of
   30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,
   in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The
   interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely
   subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and
   agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the
   long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the
   introduction of free competition. It was under such
   discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty
   of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure
   (the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of
   its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),
   though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,
   inaugurated a new era in France."

      _C. F. Bastable,
      The Commerce of Nations,
      chapter 8._

   "By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
   all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
   produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
   ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
   per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
   hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
   other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
   wines and brandies.
{3078}
   As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
   and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
   exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
   Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
   any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
   imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
   power might concede to any third power; and also not to
   enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
   or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
   to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
   that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
   she had done for the past, and England made another step in
   the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
   manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
   free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
   to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
   France and England entered into similar treaties with other
   nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
   were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
   to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
   existence in countries not originally parties to the French
   treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
   benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."

      _L. Levi,
      Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
      (Journal of the Statistical Society,
      volume 40, 1877), page 3._

TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
   Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
   Protection measures of 1878-1887.

   "Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the
   German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced
   protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of
   political life in Western Europe through the events of the
   years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered
   between nations produced, however, a strong movement in
   Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of
   commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted
   in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty
   of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of
   the international compacts for the promotion of commercial
   intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European
   history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a
   first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it
   did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a
   considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between
   the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for
   its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very
   influential association was formed, with free trade as the
   avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the
   champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of
   the highest order. They included the well-known economists
   Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,
   Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,
   the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and
   exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the
   governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results
   of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that
   the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring
   about improved commercial relations with other nations by the
   same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by
   the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,
   Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter
   war against the two first named countries wherever the German
   tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial
   treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great
   achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous
   treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this
   reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same
   advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.
   The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of
   France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by
   Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing
   arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers
   and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly
   opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with
   the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new
   departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the
   advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,
   after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was
   consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very
   broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark
   convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the
   respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The
   latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for
   the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing
   import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a
   'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of
   the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been
   commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal
   upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between
   the two countries. Austria was naturally against the
   conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with
   herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the
   means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied
   by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in
   1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,
   that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition
   that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done
   in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the
   complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It
   was only a compact between two independent nations, but on
   more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly
   constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other
   directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the
   example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866
   into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain
   and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the
   contracting parties granted to each other the position of the
   most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties
   after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.
   These additional treaties were no more than the latter the
   work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising
   from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and
   South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther
   progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its
   forward march. …
{3079}
   A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to
   speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between
   the North-German Federation, the new political constellation
   Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after
   destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and
   Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue
   policy of all Germany was to be managed by the
   'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of
   representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of
   representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on
   a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain
   that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all
   Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one
   nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual
   monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in
   consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after
   the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory
   conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,
   and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,
   the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,
   wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the
   treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a
   substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the
   treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and
   Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each
   other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had
   granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,
   Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of
   the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created
   Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free
   trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in
   hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic
   laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873
   the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the
   Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties
   on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The
   Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no
   less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the
   other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was
   not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part
   upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade
   movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the
   time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of
   a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.
   Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began
   to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all
   Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and
   his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that
   their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince
   over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that
   was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became
   clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of
   the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the
   mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized
   in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front
   was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the
   Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a
   most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had
   been done by the government under his own eyes and with his
   full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the
   Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for
   the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the
   public finances in order to increase the revenues of the
   Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for
   the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee
   began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot
   haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,
   1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of
   protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond
   all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …
   The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the
   lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large
   majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the
   'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new
   faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on
   cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing
   duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great
   number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The
   protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,
   inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the
   protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced
   that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still
   higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government
   brought every influence to bear against the opposition,
   resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.
   Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of
   duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and
   raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even
   again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and
   especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced
   a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased
   membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.
   … The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of
   Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon
   negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and
   Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."

      _H. Villard,
      German Tariff Policy
      (Yale Review, May, 1892)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Dawson,
      Bismarck and State Socialism._

TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Reciprocity Treaty.

   The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
   Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
   Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
   June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
   September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
   and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
   William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
   acting for the latter.
{3080}
   By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
   addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
   by the … convention of October 20, 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 to take fish of every kind,
   except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
   bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
   Scotia, 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 coasts and
   shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, 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 coast 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 fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
   reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
   provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
   arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
   "as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
   to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
   fishermen of the United States contained in the next
   succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
   treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
   sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
   parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
   first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
   and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
   agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
   annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
   colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
   country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
   breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
   smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
   Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
   fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
   eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
   marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
   cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
   kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
   of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
   or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
   Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
   unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
   Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
   Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
   citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
   navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
   between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
   tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
   subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
   suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
   Government of the United States might suspend the operations
   of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
   right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
   United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
   open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
   equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
   should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
   St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
   States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
   that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
   were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
   Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
   it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
   which it may come into operation, and further until the
   expiration of twelve months after either of the high
   contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
   to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
   the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
   applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
   of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
   embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
   effect; but not otherwise.

      _Treaties and Conventions between the
      United States and other Powers,
      edition of 1889, pages 448-452._

   The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having
   given the required notice in 1865.

      _F. E. Haynes,
      The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854
      (American Economic Association Publications,
      volume 7, number 6)._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
   The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.

   "In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher
   range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The
   Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the
   present protective system. But this is by no means the case.
   The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of
   Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session
   preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,
   undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the
   Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,
   votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist
   leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in
   the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its
   consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next
   session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the
   Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was
   carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was
   entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session
   of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of
   the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time
   to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill
   tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the
   act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to
   restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they
   proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was
   to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific
   duties … established were in many cases considerably above the
   ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes
   made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron
   and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican
   party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the
   manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the
   movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,
   said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.
   He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,
   next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an
   excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and
   irresponsible competition at home'.

      _Congressional Globe, 1859-60, page 1867._

{3081}

   Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and
   over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the
   manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial
   to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'

      _Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 2053._

      _C. F. Hunter's speech,
      Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010._

      In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of
      1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by
      manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …

      Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.

   Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was
   fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue
   for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and
   as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,
   additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular
   session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties
   was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a
   month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties
   on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864
   are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the
   latter is of particular importance, because it became the
   foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue
   acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that
   probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has
   seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension
   of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding
   increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan
   of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864
   was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the
   management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee
   on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done
   in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered
   necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same
   situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if
   the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great
   object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the
   measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of
   1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of
   taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who
   were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and
   those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but
   one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,
   and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage
   to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent
   in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that
   year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …
   Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he
   wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,
   moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the
   public mind toward the question of import duties became
   distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which
   had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06
   per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as
   they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to
   almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864
   remained in force for twenty years without reductions."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      pages 158-169, with foot-note._

   Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
   1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
   dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, page 400._

TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
   Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.

   Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
   are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
   capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
   substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
   against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
   superior climate and easier development of its southern
   neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
   advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
   of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
   territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
   well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
   ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
   their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
   system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
   New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
   According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
   prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
   variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
   other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
   more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
   to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
   artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
   If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
   while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
   South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
   inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
   caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
   not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
   of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
   Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
   departments of national life is a fair indication of
   prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
   allowed that an increase in population, a development of
   agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
   commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
   public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
   that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
   indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
   tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
   examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
   population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
   manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
   adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
   all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
   much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
   in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
   larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
   cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
   those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
   ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
   Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
   New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
   province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
   Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
{3082}
   She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
   in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
   maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
   accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
   that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
   has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."

      _B. R. Wise,
      Industrial Freedom,
      appendix 3._

TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
   Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
   High Tariff in France.

   "The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon
   III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little
   support in the national mind, and was hardly understood
   outside the small circle of French economists. The need of
   fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most
   prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist
   in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern
   commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased
   30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and
   spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As
   the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the
   taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by
   the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his
   resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not
   however to come into operation until compensating productive
   duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing
   commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in
   policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England
   and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to
   their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,
   the former country required that if imported raw products were
   to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay
   an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of
   escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination
   of the treaties (in the technical language of international
   law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but
   as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion
   of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored
   to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw
   materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency
   was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system
   introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872
   imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign
   vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return
   to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in
   1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of
   French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports
   of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying
   trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native
   ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious
   task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties
   that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.
   The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several
   increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.
   Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles
   were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties
   were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock
   and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new
   'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh
   treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or
   partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged
   by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from
   the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of
   articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all
   countries outside Europe came under the general code. The
   reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet
   very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The
   agricultural depression was the primary cause of the
   legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per
   quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and
   barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on
   indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under
   increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their
   partial success, the advocates of high duties have made
   further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used
   by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and
   the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the
   rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of
   30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under
   the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian
   commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the
   formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial
   treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal
   and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces
   that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout
   Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had
   largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently
   required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the
   country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by
   the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was
   that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher
   rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both
   in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and
   strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in
   securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and
   the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of
   the new system of high taxation with no conventional
   privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and
   Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in
   which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …
   In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to
   say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.
   … Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of
   protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]
   adhered to the system of moderate duties."

      _C. F. Bastable,
      The Commerce of Nations,
      chapter 9._

   A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,
   with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and
   adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi
   du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in
   duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to
   nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw
   materials in general are admitted free of duties. The
   commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.

{3083}

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.
   Revision of the Tariff.

   In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into
   consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various
   questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,
   mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of
   the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the
   establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the
   existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'
   Several things it was expected would be accomplished by
   revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of
   nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected
   to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede
   them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as
   would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves
   against foreign competition. The protective force of the
   existing tariff had been weakened in several important
   manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The
   composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the
   manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in
   their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a
   substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not
   by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best
   conservative opinion of the country, including that which had
   in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of
   the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the
   existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due
   recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to
   consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial
   prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily
   inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special
   interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive
   duties, except for establishing new industries, which more
   than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those
   of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,
   or those above such standard of equalization, were positively
   injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.
   They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing
   enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
   by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
   plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
   skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
   rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
   part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
   of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
   production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
   condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
   And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
   those which have been long established, it would seem that the
   improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
   twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
   become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
   our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
   substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
   views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
   duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
   feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
   relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
   and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
   heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
   difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
   the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
   dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
   protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
   have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
   ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
   succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
   not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
   not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
   on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
   more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
   an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
   favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
   were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
   floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
   on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
   the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
   American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
   manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
   to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
   manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
   the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
   them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
   in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
   conflict arose between other interests. The method of
   determining how much protection their several interests
   needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
   been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
   recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
   were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
   were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
   the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
   articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
   in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
   were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
   articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
   were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
   substantially the same rates, though levied under different
   clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
   those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
   been classed as doubtful."

      _A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
      book 2, chapter 7._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
   Attempts at Tariff Reform.
   The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
   President Cleveland's Message.
   The Mills Bill and its defeat.

   The slight concessions made in the protectionist
   tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
   the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
   question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
   American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
   early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
   "protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
   in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
   Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
   its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
   pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
   become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
   fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
   The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
   strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
   reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
   was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
   which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
   so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
   on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
   under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
   An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
   the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
   nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
   indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
   Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
   the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
   was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
   until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
   enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
   voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
   The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
   of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
   from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
   Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
   killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
   Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
   bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
   considerable number of articles and placing several others on
   the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
   but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
   During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
   on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
   shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
   steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
   House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
   duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
   the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
   led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
   were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
   he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
   the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
   that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
   sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
   the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
   duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
   the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
   to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
   with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
   refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
   the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
   arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
   same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
   attempt with no better success.

      _O. H. Perry,
      Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887)._

   The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,
   1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
   which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
   tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
   national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
   array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the
   upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
   the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
   passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
   his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
   the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
   and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
   Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
   unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
   excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
   with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
   $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
   excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
   June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
   scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
   this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
   the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
   importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
   upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
   liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
   to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
   necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
   taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
   to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
   to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
   vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
   taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
   as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
   consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
   precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
   duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
   imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
   or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
   upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
   home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
   of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
   articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
   the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
   that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
   millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
   foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
   made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
   same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
   articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
   into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
   who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
   least approximately equal to this duty to the home
   manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
   revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
   require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
   especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
   and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
   are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
   country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
   subject to duty.
{3085}
   Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
   manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
   of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
   aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
   luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
   of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
   which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
   greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
   upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
   importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
   reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
   how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
   manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
   better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
   other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
   Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
   sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
   the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
   glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
   certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
   contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
   solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
   partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
   and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
   action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
   the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
   declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
   permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
   and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
   … Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
   by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
   This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
   which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
   may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
   award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
   advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
   trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
   utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
   in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
   chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
   Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
   2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
   Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
   the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
   upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
   advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
   manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
   intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
   need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
   in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
   of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
   many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
   now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
   Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
   enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
   most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
   to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
   $12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
   woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
   placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
   a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
   material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
   duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
   a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
   a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
   we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
   specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
   by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
   protected in combinations against the consumer of their
   products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
   the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
   amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
   The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
   article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
   peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
   necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
   duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
   with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
   rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
   cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
   cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
   per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
   It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
   per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
   per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
   cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
   flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
   and articles in common use. These were the more important
   modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
   Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
   of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
   remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
   subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
   voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
   Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
   a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
   substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
   direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
   Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.
   The McKinley Act.

   "In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
   squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
   election of President Harrison were the results. … The
   election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
   certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
   independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
   President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
   many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
   the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
   made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
   they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
   favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
   policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
   led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
   advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
   various directions. …
{3086}
   Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
   of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
   pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
   This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
   Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
   resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
   necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
   Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
   leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
   popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."

      _F. W. Taussig,
      Tariff History of the United States,
      chapter 5._

   The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the
   Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
   the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
   said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
   prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
   a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
   to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
   by increased production and home competition insure fair
   prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
   such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
   soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
   can be done without injury to any American industry, or
   wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
   detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
   protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
   duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
   production here, including labor, and the cost of like
   production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
   we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
   involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
   of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
   proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
   manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
   measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
   1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
   were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
   was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
   was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
   was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
   raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
   return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
   enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
   tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
   act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
   alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
   satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
   on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
   pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
   wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
   cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
   costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
   from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
   with the protection afforded by the increased duties
   recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
   be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
   home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
   the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
   The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
   about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
   cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
   clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
   growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
   tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
   clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
   a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
   injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
   necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
   dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
   home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
   than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
   apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
   last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
   the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
   invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
   $90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
   consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
   pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
   the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
   to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
   continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
   be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
   first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
   equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
   imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
   valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
   proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
   classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
   foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
   made clothing for the protection of the clothing
   manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
   on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
   specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
   the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
   and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
   average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
   91.78 per cent."

      _Report of the Committee on Ways and Means._

   "Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
   Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
   weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
   one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
   19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
   with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
   lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
   the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
   it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
   between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
   bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
   by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
   approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
   Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
   law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
   Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:

   steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;

   tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
   per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
   list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
   product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
   of the importations;

   unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;

   bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
   duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
   provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
   1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
   in one year 5,000 tons;

   a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
   beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
   States between 1891 and 1905;

   all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in
   color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
   three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
   additional if imported from a country that pays an export
   bounty;

   a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;

   a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.
   on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;

   a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of
   raw wool designed to give more protection;

   paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.

   The following (among other) additions are made to the free
   list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
   languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
   and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
   needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
   … Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
   which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
   important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
   by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
   fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
   Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
   House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
   House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
   voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
   Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
   refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
   with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
   by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
   recommendation of the International American Conference for
   improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
   importance of securing the markets of central and South
   America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
   than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
   tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
   free entry of the products of any American nation which should
   in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
   manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
   again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
   criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
   that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
   concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
   section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
   would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
   barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
   suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
   bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
   proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
   tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
   of the United States exactions which in view of the free
   introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
   and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
   demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
   reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
   committee and became part of the law."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Events, December, 1890._

TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
   The Wilson Act.
   Protected interests and the Senate.

   Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of
   protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
   submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
   the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
   congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
   reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
   again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
   houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
   policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
   in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
   produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
   (see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
   extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
   treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
   first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
   accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
   Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
   more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
   discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
   collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
   members of the House committee on ways and means began during
   the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
   outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
   before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
   previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
   terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
   reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
   features of the bill, as described in the statement of
   Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
   the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
   specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
   great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
   production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
   first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
   as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
   raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
   industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
   reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
   the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
   McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
   important additions to the free list included iron ore,
   lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
   existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
   one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
   repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
{3088}
   Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
   the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
   features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
   of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
   the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
   revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
   set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
   deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
   House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
   29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
   changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
   in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
   sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
   instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
   repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
   greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
   progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
   which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
   formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
   committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
   Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
   on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
   to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
   … imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
   were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
   losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
   income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
   under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
   matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
   interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
   above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
   by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
   savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
   The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
   antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
   headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
   and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
   On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
   Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
   majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
   measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
   the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
   The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
   revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
   Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
   not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
   140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
   in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
   the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
   in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
   the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
   before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
   Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
   most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
   off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
   on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
   however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
   dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
   their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
   lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
   their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
   in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
   committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
   sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
   numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
   net increase in rates."

      _Political Science Quarterly:
      Record of Political Events, June, 1894._

   Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it
   became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
   and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
   some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
   obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
   pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
   opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
   conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
   expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
   the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
   1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
   friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
   advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
   people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
   exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
   unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
   indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
   attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
   their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
   but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
   will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
   settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
   becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
   the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
   it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
   status continue, until the country can get rid of its
   purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
   honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
   head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
   generally."

      _H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, July, 1894)._

   First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
   committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
   character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
   the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
   were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
   dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
   rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
   35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
   was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
   law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
   even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
   motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
   important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
   were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
   salt.
{3089}
   In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
   tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
   conference committee to break the strength of the combination
   against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
   reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
   passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
   conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
   House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
   to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
   law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
   adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
   ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
   acted on in the Senate.

   ----------TARIFF: End--------

TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.

TARPEIAN ROCK, The.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL.

TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.

      See ROME: B. C. 510.

TARRACONENSIS.

      See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
   Occupation by the French.
   Surrender to the Spaniards.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
   Siege by the French.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.

TARSUS.

      See CILICIA.

TARTAN.

   The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the
   Assyrian armies.

TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TARTARS, OR TATARS.

   "The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
   greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
   imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
   name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
   after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
   is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
   tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
   I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
   whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
   Northern Manchuria."

      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 1, page 25._

   "The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.
   It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
   title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
   distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
   Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
   correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
   authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
   declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
   by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
   tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
   division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
   empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
   origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
   the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
   whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
   more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
   customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
   determined."

      _J. C. Prichard,
      Researches into the Physical History
      of the Races of Mankind,
      chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2)._

   "The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
   and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
   belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
   Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
   belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
   belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
   insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
   which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
   least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
   to call a Turk a Kalmuk."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Nationalities of Europe,
      volume 1, chapter 23._

   "Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form
   generally current), a name given to nearly three million
   inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
   Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
   of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
   inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
   Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
   extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
   … The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
   inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
   show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
   Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
   Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
   Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
   Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
   were Turks."

      _P. A. Kropotkine,
      Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Howorth,
      History of the Mongols,
      part 2, division 1, page 37._

      See TURKS;
      and MONGOLS.

TARTESSUS.

   "The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician
   settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
   the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
   Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
   Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
   century."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18._

   This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
   Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 21, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Kenrick,
      Phoenicia,
      chapter 4, section 3._

TARUMI, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TARUSATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

TATARS.

      See TARTARS.

TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.

      See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.

{3090}

TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
   The Welcome to Monmouth.
   The Maids of Taunton and their flag.

   "When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an
   eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
   towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
   civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
   the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
   had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
   afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
   streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
   the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
   before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
   Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
   affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
   flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
   hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
   the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
   One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
   of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
   young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
   and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
   these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
   queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
   their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.

      _Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 5._

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.

   The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
   a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
   "a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."

      See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;
      and CIMMERIANS.

TAURIS, Naval battle near.

   In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an
   important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
   island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
   commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
   him out of the Adriatic.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 21._

TAVORA PLOT, The.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

TAWACONIES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

TAXIARCH.
PHYLARCH.

   "The tribe appears to have been the only military
   classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
   tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
   under the general-in-chief."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3._

TAYLOR, General Zachary,
   The Mexican campaign of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

   Presidential election and administration.
   Death.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

TCHINOVNIKS.

   To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in
   motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
   of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
   noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
   called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
   an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
   but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
   explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
   are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
   arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
   rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
   must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
   he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
   on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
   the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
   offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
   necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
   not designate any actual office, and the names of the
   different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."

      _D. M. "Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 13._

TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TEA: Introduction into Europe.

   "The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it
   into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
   in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
   at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
   introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
   was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
   first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
   general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
   lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
   lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."

      _L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      page 239._

TEA-PARTY, The Boston.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

TECPANECAS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TECTOSAGES.

      See VOLCÆ.

TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;
   and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

TECUNA, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

TEGYRA, Battle of.

   The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
   the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
   Lokrian territory.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 38._

TEHUEL-CHE, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.

TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.

TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.

      See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.

TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

TELINGAS, The.

      See TURANIAN RACES.

TELL, William, The Legend of.

      See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

TELMELCHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

{3091}

TEMENIDÆ, The.

   "The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its
   royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
   Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
   same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
   dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
   disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
   between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
   of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
   that during these troubles individual members of the royal
   house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
   their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
   affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
   brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
   the shores of Peloponnesus."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._

TEMENITES.

   One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was
   so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
   contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
   Neapolis.

TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

TEMPE, Vale of.

      See THESSALY.

   ----------TEMPLARS: Start--------

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
   The founding of the Order.

   "During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was
   constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
   and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
   visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
   whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
   Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
   mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
   monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
   king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
   of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
   adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
   ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
   assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
   canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
   the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
   or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
   bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
   order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
   on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
   to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
   released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
   implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
   Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
   Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
   account of their order and its objects, which were highly
   approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
   Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
   some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
   their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
   added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
   formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
   which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
   inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
   glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
   hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
   become members of the order."

      _T. Keightley,
      The Crusaders,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. A. Froude,
      The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
      chapter 4._

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
   The Order in England and elsewhere.

   "The Knights Templars first established the chief house of
   their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the
   south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly
   stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were
   afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,
   established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure
   from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the
   wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when
   the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of
   Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the
   resources of the society were strictly and faithfully
   forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the
   faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,
   power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original
   purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the
   knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more
   extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a
   large space of ground, extending from the White Friars
   westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the
   erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with
   the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great
   religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was
   called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original
   establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known
   by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for
   the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving
   brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of
   handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated
   by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious
   pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple
   Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in
   England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the
   Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,
   churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,
   windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common
   and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property
   possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the
   taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual
   income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at
   six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the
   Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in
   Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches
   arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of
   sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition
   to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and
   immunities."

      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 3._

{3092}

   When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property
   confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were
   granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl
   of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of
   Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for
   a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and
   during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied
   by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that
   order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into
   the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession
   as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a
   petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to
   assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was
   accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the
   Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of
   the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to
   the Crown."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 2, chapter 7._

   "Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of
   the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in
   pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking
   out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of
   Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres
   Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of
   learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant
   being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."

      _W. Thornbury,
      Old and New London,
      volume 1, chapter 14._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars
      chapter 7._

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.
   Their last campaign in Palestine.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.
   The prosecution and destruction of the order.

   "When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on
   the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the
   Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.
   By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all
   returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in
   France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.
   In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against
   the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the
   King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian
   mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and
   death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the
   side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had
   held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no
   gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society
   endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore
   temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out
   respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and
   blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular
   proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard
   in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.
   Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,
   led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And
   there was more than this: there were strange rumours of
   horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to
   believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in
   October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested
   all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their
   goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his
   hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of
   the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark
   and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two
   hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the
   brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the
   depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what
   can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others
   threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They
   made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of
   their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the
   trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably
   little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their
   confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle
   which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the
   crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous
   practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,
   in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the
   vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The
   knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of
   their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible
   prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which
   they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,
   began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had
   received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but
   suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against
   the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's
   minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by
   the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of
   Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni
   suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be
   treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the
   Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an
   enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars
   perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.
   … The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in
   March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;
   and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given
   over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery
   of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to
   William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment
   did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the
   spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.
   One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the
   order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand
   Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.
   The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a
   commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the
   confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to
   perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master
   and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and
   declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the
   abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with
   devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered
   them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there
   they were fastened to the stake and burnt."

      _G. W. Kitchin,
      History of France,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3._

{3093}

   In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated
   by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs
   of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to
   examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of
   the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of
   the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the
   effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the
   Templars in England was placed under the charge of a
   commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against
   them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,
   giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part
   of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to
   the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to
   monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular
   habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In
   Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against
   the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases
   torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in
   France, and those places where Philip's influence was
   powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. G. Addison,
      The Knights Templars,
      chapter 7._

      _J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 5, chapter 3._

      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5)._

   ----------TEMPLARS: End--------

TEMPLE, The (London).

      See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.

TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.

   After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which
   were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great
   Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his
   eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and
   plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to
   Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The
   temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,
   now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can
   still be traced with great certainty at the north-western
   angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The
   building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor
   Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of
   the greatest events of Roman history."

      _H. G. Liddell,
      History of Rome,
      book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._

TEMPLE OF DIANA.

      See EPHESUS.

TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.

   "The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of
   Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood
   near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the
   verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small
   'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or
   perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much
   minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without
   columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its
   doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at
   peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional
   founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once
   after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of
   Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,
   probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus
   Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to
   this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous
   shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which
   were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."

      _J. H. Middleton,
      Ancient Rome in 1885,
      chapter 5._

   The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after
   the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in
   Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of
   the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the
   computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ
   to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had
   refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his
   precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this
   solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.
   … The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets
   and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A
   new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately
   predicted."

      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 60._

TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.

   "As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
   capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
   sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
   of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
   had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
   it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
   by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
   he had received the promise that the great work should be
   accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
   with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
   reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
   friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
   … The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
   letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
   commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
   the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
   oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
   an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
   have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
   spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
   which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
   and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
   certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
   the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
   stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
   Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
   Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
   the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
   threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
   this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
   difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
   less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
   chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
   yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
   which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
   quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
   of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
   have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
   was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
   his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
   rendered such undertakings possible. …
{3094}
   Four classes were subject to it.

   1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn
   Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet
   30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one
   month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.

   2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such
   as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and
   worked for pay.

   3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or
   sold for debt, or home-born.

   4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal
   Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000
   burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of
   Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite
   officers.

   The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs
   of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the
   dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,
   perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad
   narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that
   the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss
   of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of
   his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its
   materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and
   commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,
   35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic
   habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.
   … Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we
   know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level
   roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel
   at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the
   Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the
   three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or
   planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and
   silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with
   carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were
   decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do
   we know with certainty whether it was supported within by
   pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for
   twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred
   years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple
   of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries
   to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's
   Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its
   objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines
   which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood
   for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the
   Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till
   seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the
   Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the
   general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions
   and admitted many innovations."

      _F. W. Farrar,
      The First Book of Kings,
      chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible)._

TEN, The Council of.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.

      See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.

TEN YEARS WAR, The.

   The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
   Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
   War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
   war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
   Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
   War.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2._

      See ATHENS: B. C. 421.

TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.
   The Tenant League.

      See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.

TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

TENCTHERI, The.

   See USIPETES.

TENEDOS.

   See TROJA;
   and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

TENEZ, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

   ----------TENNESSEE: Start--------

TENNESSEE:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.

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

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

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

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.
   First English exploration from Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
   The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlers in the eastern valley.
   The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.

   "Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial
   struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British
   king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists
   from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the
   mountains.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.

   But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations
   agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between
   the Ohio and the Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

   This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
   offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
   the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
   than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
   hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
   debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
   against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
   consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
   from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
   Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
   Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
   this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
   Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
   streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
   upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
   headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
   and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
   was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
   Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
   valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
   western frontier, the first movements of population went
   parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
{3095}
   As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
   part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
   North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
   settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
   part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
   case there was also a very considerable movement directly
   westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
   intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
   adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
   passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
   population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
   yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
   natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
   Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
   behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
   In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
   permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
   settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
   settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
   head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
   first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
   Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
   boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
   the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
   Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
   discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
   of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
   they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
   their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
   Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
   their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
   organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
   commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
   to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
   governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
   insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
   ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
   Alamance.

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

   As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back
   counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up
   their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper
   Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving
   its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first
   comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers
   always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier
   civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of
   sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and
   beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the
   founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of
   Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some
   kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work
   equity between man and man. Two of their number already
   towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and
   merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next
   thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that
   portion of the Southwest which largely through their own
   efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither
   of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James
   Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for
   combination, so striking as existing together with the equally
   characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers
   determined to organize a government of their own. They
   promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring
   of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the
   movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,
   by which their conduct should be governed; and these were
   known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed
   a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the
   mountains, or by a community composed of American-born
   freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and
   self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the
   Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.
   They were the first men of American birth to establish a free
   and independent community on the continent. … The first step
   taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to
   organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of
   folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then
   elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or
   'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently
   the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each
   block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins
   and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier
   legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who
   proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier
   and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry
   on the actual business of government, and should exercise both
   judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a
   sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and
   enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this
   little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of
   full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true
   American style a purely democratic government with
   representative institutions."

      _T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 1, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
      The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
      chapters 2-6._

      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 1-3._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
   Annexation to North Carolina.
   Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
   Consequent revolt.
   Repeal of the act of cession.

   "The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
   association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
   independent government, governed as the older colonies were
   governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
   the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
   views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
   distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
   rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
   for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
   annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
   provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
   November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
   delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
{3096}
   After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
   of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
   In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
   became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
   of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
   the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
   inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
   active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
   Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
   under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
   the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
   with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
   of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
   with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
   the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
   imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
   the United States all the territory which is now the State of
   Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.

   This of course included all the settlements. The condition of
   the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.
   Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the
   jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every
   respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession
   was first broached, it was accepted by the four
   representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well
   as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate
   solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of
   opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is
   no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection
   to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the
   cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was
   that North Carolina had left them without any form of
   government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept
   through the entire settlement. … The people regarded
   themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of
   their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in
   their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in
   the history of institutions that the possessors of English
   tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local
   self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter
   sessions, township, county, school district, or military
   company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so
   convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them
   as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the
   county court. Each company elected two representatives, and
   the representatives so elected in each county formed
   themselves into a committee, and the three committees of
   Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of
   impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a
   general convention to be elected by the people of the
   different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,
   1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and
   Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention
   which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a
   'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of
   North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a
   future convention in which representation was to be according
   to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly
   inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still
   claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North
   Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was
   supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a
   new State."

      _J. Phelan,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 5-10._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Gilmore,
      John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,
      chapter 2._

      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      chapter 3._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.
   The Battle of King's Mountain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.
   The organization of the State of Franklin.

   "Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
   under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
   urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
   November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
   beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
   be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
   quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
   intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
   for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
   Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
   into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
   much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
   Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
   nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
   1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
   protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
   this condition had called a convention, had framed a
   constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
   name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
   at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
   what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
   second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
   the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
   constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
   expected that the men of the district would consider it
   carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
   should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
   upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
   there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
   Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
   could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
   till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
   organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
   chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
   accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
   parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
   business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
   they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
   excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
   merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
   time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
   long one. But there would be no article in the list less
   plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
   to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
   it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
   articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
{3097}
   One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
   shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
   and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
   worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
   of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
   three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
   selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
   place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
   determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
   should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
   this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
   every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
   hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
   East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
   new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
   Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
   passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
   of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
   the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
   the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
   officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
   was named after him."

      _J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. M. Ramsey,
      Annals of Tennessee,
      chapter 4._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
   The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
   The rise of the state of Tennessee.

   On receiving news of the organization of the independent state
   of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a
   proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler
   judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its
   effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina
   "gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority
   still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government
   but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition
   of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated
   into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and
   both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both
   became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became
   enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims
   of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as
   the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit
   led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst
   of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect
   to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had
   been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,
   in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The
   continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of
   parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse
   to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local
   government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be
   more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with
   his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly
   appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the
   independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin
   himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for
   counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally
   rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of
   the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were
   already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh
   outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of
   the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The
   conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the
   malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the
   reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased
   to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and
   their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,
   in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and
   imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the
   aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and
   was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of
   allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults
   forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded
   in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,
   and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,
   "in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis
   Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of
   Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,
   North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western
   territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to
   the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to
   be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."
   The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with
   William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),
   the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a
   census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,
   a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,
   with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in
   Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as
   one of the United States of America. Its first Representative
   in the House was Andrew Jackson.

      _W. H. Carpenter,
      History of Tennessee,
      chapters 13-17._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. R. Gilmore,
      John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,
      chapters 4-12._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
   The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
   Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

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

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
   The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.

   "The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
   the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
   the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
   Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3098}

   It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The
   election took place on the 8th day of February. The people
   voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In
   disregard of this vote of the people, however, the
   legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing
   the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate
   States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,
   sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He
   stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should
   become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force
   and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said
   state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall
   be under the chief control and direction of the President of
   the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state
   would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over
   all public property it might acquire from the United States.
   The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of
   both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th
   day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a
   declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of
   the people for ratification. This document waives the right of
   secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of
   Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract
   doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
   independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances
   by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are
   hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the
   governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.
   It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in
   declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,
   placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,
   which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."

      _S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1, documents 201-205._

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
   The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.

   "For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee
   gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession
   was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been
   already delivered by its governor and legislature to the
   Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel
   troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at
   any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the
   straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300
   of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred
   from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of
   drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and
   villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of
   the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great
   honor, had no lot or part in the work."

      _W. G. Brownlow,
      Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,
      pages 222-223._

   "Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,
   the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to
   hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best
   course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The
   attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates
   present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four
   days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and
   Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to
   the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United
   States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States
   has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has
   thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The
   Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being
   dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue
   measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain
   protest! It was not long before those Unionists and
   protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and
   were hunted down like wild beasts."

      _O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. W. Humes,
      The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,
      chapters 6-11._

      _W. Rule,
      Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
   The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
   Fort Donelson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
   The continued advance of the Union armies.
   Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
   The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
   Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
   of Memphis by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
   The Buell-Bragg campaign.
   Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
   Bragg and Rosecrans.
   The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).
   Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).
   The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
      Burnside in east Tennessee.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
         A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
         BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
   The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
   The Union army at Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
      ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
   The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
   Lookout Mountain.
   Missionary Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).
   Siege of Knoxville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{3099}

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
   Winter operations.
   Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).
   The Fort Pillow Massacre.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
   Forrest's raid.
   The capture of Athens.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
   Hood's invasion and destruction.
   The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
   President Johnson's recognition of the
   reconstructed State Government.

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

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
   Reconstruction.
   Abolition of Slavery.
   Restoration of the State to its
   "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

   In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though
   Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of
   military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention
   originating from his recommendation and assembling under his
   auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of
   January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who
   'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
   voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
   voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,
   as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and
   controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her
   citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
   of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular
   convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,
   'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and
   further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law
   recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took
   several other important steps, annulling in whole and in
   detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had
   made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was
   swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
   created in aid of the war against the Union. All these
   proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of
   February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293
   against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at
   the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's
   requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly
   complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the
   popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.
   Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of
   'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on
   the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second
   inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month
   later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the
   Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by
   National authority to that already decreed by the State. The
   Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
   Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
   United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
   thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.
   Lincoln."

      _J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 3._

   After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,
   more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to
   its constitutional relations with the United States, by the
   admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.
   Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to
   obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the
   Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the
   reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing
   the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a
   proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to
   assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every
   effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required
   number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the
   President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."
   By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of
   considering the members who were under arrest and confined in
   a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was
   assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.
   "Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.
   Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider
   a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the
   restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on
   Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced
   a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is
   hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to
   the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators
   and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,
   upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing
   laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the
   House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the
   Senate.

      _W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapter 20._

      ALSO IN:
      _Ira P. Jones,
      Reconstruction in Tennessee
      (Why the Solid South? chapter 7)._

TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.
   The Ku Klux Klan.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

   ----------TENNESSEE: End--------

TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

TENOCHTITLAN.

   The native name of the city of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TENPET, The.

      See MAGIANS.

TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.

TEQUESTA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TERENTILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TERMILI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TERRA FIRMA.

      See TIERRA FIRME.

{3100}

TERROR, The Reign of.

   As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of
   things that prevailed in France during a period of the French
   Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27
   (Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called
   is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June
   2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained
   power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The
   Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a
   deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the
   demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the
   following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may
   be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible
   Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).

TERTIARII, The.

      See BEGUINES, ETC.

TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

TESHER.

   The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,
   signifying red earth.

      See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

TESSERA HOSPITALIS.

      See HOSPES.

TEST ACT, and its Repeal.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,
      and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.

TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

TETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TETRARCH.

   As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,
   signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or
   province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary
   princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a
   rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.

TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.

TEUKRIANS, The.

   "The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh
   century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he
   treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors
   represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.
   However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather
   that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great
   occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually
   the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this
   region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic
   Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present
   use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 14._

TEUTECAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

TEUTONES.
TEUTONIC.

   "In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
   Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names
   with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.
   They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …
   Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of
   the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical
   word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in
   question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'
   'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'
   'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch
   means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the
   Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the
   circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and
   Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
   wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and
   Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on
   the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word
   meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective
   applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in
   opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary
   form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.
   Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
   'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection
   with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear
   that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the
   Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial
   the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting
   the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,
   it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
   irrespective of origin or locality."

      _R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus,
      appendix 3._


TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   The founding of the order.

   "It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation
   of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190
   that it received its full organization as one of the
   recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,
   like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About
   1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the
   siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,
   intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice
   of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and
   interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer
   countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to
   Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and
   hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more
   distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that
   the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a
   chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he
   passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and
   to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One
   by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in
   his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the
   pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the
   care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their
   defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed
   Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of
   the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
   although they did not actually join this Order, whose
   operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during
   the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order
   received its final and complete organization as one of the
   great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the
   Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem
   by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and
   Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and
   sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the
   designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the
   Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed
   its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is
   much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this
   or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,
   however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."

      _F. C. Woodhouse,
      Military Religious Orders,
      part 3, chapter 1._

{3101}

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   Conquest of Prussia.

   See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
   Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order
   and surrender of its territories.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.
   Suppression by Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.

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

TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).

   The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward
   IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected
   by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,
   1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and
   slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was
   taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is
   uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died
   mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.
   It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

   ----------TEXAS: Start--------

TEXAS:
   The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.

   Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century
   existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,
   and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,
   "the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their
   name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]
   speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,
   the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.

      _A. Gallatin,
      Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
      (Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
      introduction, section 3._

      ALSO IN:
      _President's Message, February 19, 1806,
      with accompanying documents._

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.
   La Salle's shipwrecked colony.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
   Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
   Condition as a Mexican province.
   Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.

   "By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
   Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
   western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
   of the Sabine.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   After the final ratification of that treaty by both
   governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to
   the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the
   country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province
   of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy
   of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western
   boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The
   province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native
   tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish
   settlements. … The whole population, including some
   settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded
   5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of
   old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the
   province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San
   Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the
   government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and
   military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such
   was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the
   year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the
   24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican
   form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent
   states,' known and designated as the 'United States of
   Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and
   Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly
   represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the
   establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,
   the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite
   subject of national policy with the new government. To attract
   population for the settlement of the country, colonization
   laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from
   foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants
   within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws
   enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some
   portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'
   were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and
   settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their
   respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being
   proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The
   first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,
   Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required
   by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the
   United States. This enterprising man, having departed from
   Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey
   through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to
   be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who
   possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the
   arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's
   enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the
   Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the
   province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole
   area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into
   extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'
   with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as
   well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment
   the population in all the departments until the year 1834,
   when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican
   Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of
   Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony
   comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire
   population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United
   States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this
   period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the
   vicinity of Bexar."

      _J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
      volume 2, pages 569-572._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Yoakum,
      History of Texas,
      volume 1, chapters 15-21._

{3102}

TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
   The introduction of Slavery.
   Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
   Revolutionary movement under Houston.
   Independence of Mexico declared,
   and practically won at San Jacinto.

   The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with
   them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the
   Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the
   importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign
   countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the
   same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of
   slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States
   began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.
   The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State
   and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase
   south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to
   the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the
   territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited
   for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for
   the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory
   for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of
   power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican
   government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the
   American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two
   to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the
   importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by
   the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within
   its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found
   themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in
   sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to
   its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and
   eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth
   looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as
   matters of very great importance, and the annexation project
   was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers
   in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,
   and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican
   authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did
   not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the
   Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging
   the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was
   created by organizing three land companies in New York, which
   used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of
   issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and
   thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business
   speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to
   purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State
   under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the
   Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,
   but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the
   coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into
   Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now
   received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of
   Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian
   wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting
   that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that
   President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.
   Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American
   colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to
   collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,
   who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at
   the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the
   unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took
   place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.
   The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,
   1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom
   there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution
   of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under
   its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible
   guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a
   Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious
   butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the
   American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at
   San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large
   number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.
   These atrocities created a great excitement in the United
   States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800
   strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of
   1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.
   When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the
   victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,
   and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this
   the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the
   United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.
   President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to
   march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to
   apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the
   boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican
   Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The
   organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been
   suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."

      _C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 7._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7._

      _A. M. Williams,
      Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas._

TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
   Eight years of independence.
   Annexation to the United States.
   The question in Congress and the country.

   "Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
   independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
   established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
   that of the United States, and with General Houston
   inaugurated as its first President. The United States
   forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
   application was made to the United States government to
   receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
   at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
   destined to play a most important part in American civil
   policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
   attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
   emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
   temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
   be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
   conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
   or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
   the republic.
{3103}
   Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
   annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
   General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
   inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
   Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
   annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
   owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
   placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
   him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
   Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
   the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
   of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
   the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
   South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
   the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
   Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
   the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
   previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
   both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
   defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
   received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
   made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
   ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
   make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
   anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
   was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
   for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
   introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
   annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
   free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
   proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
   eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
   which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
   the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
   unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
   that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
   Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
   territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
   admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
   desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
   Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
   leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
   great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
   her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
   state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
   which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
   the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
   belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
   miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
   secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
   substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."

      _J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 22._

      ALSO IN:
      _T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years View,
      volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148._

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 8, chapter 13._

      _H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 10._

TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.
   The Mexican War.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.

TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
   Territory extorted from Mexico in the
   Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

TEXAS: A. D. 1850.
   Sale of territory to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Secession from the Union.

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

TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TEXAS: A. D. 1862.
   Farragut's occupation of coast towns.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).
   Provisional government set up under President Johnson's
   Plan of Reconstruction.

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

TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.
   Reconstruction.

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

   ----------TEXAS: End--------

TEZCUCO.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

THABORITES, The.

      See MYSTICISM.

THAI RACE, The.

      See SIAM.

THAMANÆANS, The.

   An ancient people who occupied the region in western
   Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
   Haroot-rud to the Helmend.

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

THAMES, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

THANAGE.

   An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were
   held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 246._

THANE,
THEGN.

      See COMITATUS;
      and ETHEL;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THANET, The Jute Landing on.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.

THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:
   Its origin.

   "The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
   enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
   sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
   landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
   harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
   combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
   Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
   secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
   Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
   brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
   days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
   larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
   of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
   with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
   services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
   Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
   heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
   festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
   a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
   national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
   shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
{3104}
   In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
   mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
   religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
   was so much a matter of course that the records did not
   mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
   its sermon and holiday features."

      _J. A. Goodwin,
      The Pilgrim Republic,
      pages 179-180, and foot-note._

THANN,
THAUN,
   Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   Battle of (1809).

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

THAPSACUS.

   Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,
   at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where
   that river is fordable (though even here only at certain
   seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used
   alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long
   period. It was also a commercial route of importance in
   ancient times."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1)._

      See, also, APAMEA.

THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

THASOS.
THASIAN MINES.

   Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern
   part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its
   gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.
   Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast
   were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued
   by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

THAUR, The Cave of Mount.

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

THAUSS, Battle of (1431).

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

THEATINES, The.

   The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were
   "Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro
   Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a
   lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the
   ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,
   Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his
   pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of
   the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a
   Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it
   was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of
   Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name
   to the new order of the Theatines."

      _A. W. Ward,
      The Counter-Reformation,
      page 28._

   "To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not
   only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from
   begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their
   dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular
   clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their
   intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the
   priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their
   clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the
   sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the
   Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests
   precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it
   grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be
   considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."

      _L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._

THEBAIS, The.

   The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from
   Thebes.

THEBES, Egypt.

   "No city of the old world can still show so much of her former
   splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of
   Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many
   of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,
   fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great
   city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,
   rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close
   of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line
   of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their
   capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a
   local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of
   Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.
   Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries
   earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil
   and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of
   thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,
   and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own
   famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name
   was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply
   Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we
   recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."

      _R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 4._

      See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

   ----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------

THEBES, Greece:
   The founding of the city.

   "In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
   stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
   Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
   separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
   pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
   the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
   it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
   the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
   whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
   on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
   Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
   ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
   mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
   Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
   Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
   Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
   He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
   on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
   relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
   the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
   hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
   nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
   Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
   these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
   belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
   the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
{3105}
   The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
   stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
   whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
   belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
   goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
   Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
   circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
   Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
   letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
   Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
   even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
   they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
   of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
   other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
   Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
   Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
   taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
   from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
   important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
   Cadmea."

      _M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 4._

      See, also, BŒOTIA.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.
   Unsuccessful war with Athens.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.
   Traitorous alliance with the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
   Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
   Punishment for the Persian alliance.

      See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
   War with Athens.
   Defeat at Œnophyta.
   Overthrow of the oligarchies.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
   Bœotian revolution.
   Overthrow of Athenian influence.
   Defeat of Athens at Coronea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
   Disastrous attack on Platæa.
   Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.

      See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.
   Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Battle of Coronea.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.
   The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
   The liberation of the city.
   Rise of Epaminondas.
   Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.
   The Sacred Band.

   "This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages
   of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the
   Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the
   Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front
   of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient
   institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a
   new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.
   They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,
   with whom they had presented themselves before the community
   on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as
   the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no
   longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three
   Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in
   feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already
   under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing
   themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the
   elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the
   rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and
   discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds
   of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like
   spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points
   of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the
   present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an
   honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 6, chapter 1._

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
   Intervention in Peloponnesus.
   Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
   Invasions of Sparta.
   Formation of the Arcadian Union.
   Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
   The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
   Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
   Loss of independence and liberty.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.
   Revolt.
   Destruction by Alexander the Great.

      See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.
   Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.
   Siege of by Demetrius.

   Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
   Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
   Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
   siege which lasted nearly a year.

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 60._

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
   Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
   Abduction of silk-weavers.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.
   Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.

      See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.
   Conquest by the Catalans.

      See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

   ----------THEBES, Greece: End--------

THEGN,
THANE.

   See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

THEIPHALI.
THEIPHALIA.

      See TAIFALÆ.

THEMES.

   Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term
   thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military
   districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,
   and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate
   geographical administrative divisions."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note._

      See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.

THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.

THEODORA,
   Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.

THEODORE, King of Corsica.

      See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

   Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.

   Theodore II., Pope, 898.

   Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.

   Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.

   Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.

   Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.

THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;
      and ROME: A. D. 488-526.

{3106}

THEODOSIAN CODE, The.

      See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
   (Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
   (Western), 392-395;
   in Britain.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

   Theodosius II., Roman Emperor
   (Eastern), 408-450;
   (Western), 423-425.

   Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.

THEOPHILUS,
   Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.

THEORI.

   The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to
   its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and
   public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was
   specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose
   function it was to superintend and take charge of religious
   affairs in general, though they often possessed along with
   this some more extensive political power."

      _G. Schumann,
      Antiquities of Greece: The State,
      part 2, chapter 5._

THEORICON, The.

   "By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of
   the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state
   [Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less
   than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large
   sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.
   By it is understood the money which was distributed among the
   people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly
   to restore to the citizens the sum required for their
   admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a
   better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with
   which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of
   the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently
   had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative
   offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.
   They were elected by the assembly of the people through
   cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their
   number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one
   from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the
   treasury of the theorica its private treasury."

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens
      (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13._

THEOW.

   "In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'
   [from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,
   whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or
   purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the
   slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works
   for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because
   he cannot pay his debts."

      _W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 5, section 37._

THERA.

   The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the
   Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and
   weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have
   founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      See CYRENAICA.

   "The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic
   eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at
   the height of the Minoan civilization."

      _Wikipedia: Santorini.
      Transcriber's Note._

THERMÆ.

   "The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the
   common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was
   that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were
   formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for
   gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which
   stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and
   spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the
   Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of
   buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the
   Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each
   side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central
   mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other
   great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,
   Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan
   as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the
   interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of
   marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as
   distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had
   none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were
   found in the courts of the great thermæ."

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      introduction._

THERMIDOR, The month.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

THERMIDORIANS.
   The Ninth of Thermidor.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and
      1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.

      See THESSALY.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
   The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.
   Repulse of Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.
   Defense against the Gauls.

      See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.
   Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.

      See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.
   Greek victory over the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

THERVINGI, The.

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

THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.

THESMOPHORIA, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 383.

THESMOTHETES.

      See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

THESPROTIANS.

      See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.

   ----------THESSALONICA: Start--------

THESSALONICA.

   Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the
   name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister
   of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave
   an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high
   commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the
   Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
   Massacre ordered by Theodosius.

   A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
   imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
   was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
   that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
   possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
   to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
   assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
   posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
   races, but of a general massacre.
{3107}
   The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
   discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
   innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
   number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
   writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
   guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
   residence at Thessalonica."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 27._

THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.
   Capture and pillage by the Saracens.

   The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from
   Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of
   its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the
   fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down
   to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword
   were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the
   second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.
   The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit
   dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
      book 2, chapter 1, section 2._

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.
   Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.

      See SALONIKI.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.
   The Greek empire.

      See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.
   Capture by the Turks.

   Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was
   taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.
   "'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,
   an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the
   hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family
   escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of
   the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,
   each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets
   of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of
   caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.
   Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,
   mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of
   sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death
   itself.'"

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 10, section 27._

   ----------THESSALONICA: End--------

THESSALY.

   "The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length
   by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from
   the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,
   and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge
   first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the
   northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route
   still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into
   Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the
   eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and
   richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,
   after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the
   loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely
   free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys
   parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the
   Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth
   rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range
   which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the
   first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a
   steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,
   with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute
   the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The
   mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is
   broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow
   cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned
   in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The
   imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to
   dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the
   sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his
   laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],
   the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into
   which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a
   continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,
   which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a
   separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its
   physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a
   huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at
   Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the
   Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in
   direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount
   Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is
   continued without interruption, though under various names and
   different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan
   Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,
   connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and
   afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of
   Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of
   Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."

      _C. Thirlwall,
      History of Greece,
      chapter 1 (volume 1)._

   In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of
   Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally
   by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,
   however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian
   plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading
   tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the
   country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing
   the Pindus mountain-range.

      See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;
      and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

THETES, The.

      See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;
      also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.

THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.

THIASI.

   "The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had
   chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in
   whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal
   banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very
   varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes
   only social enjoyments."

      _G. F. Schömann,
      Antiquities of Greece,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 2._

THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.

   Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.

THIBET.

      See TIBET.

THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.

   Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
   King of Burgundy, 596-613.

   Thierry III., King of the Franks
   (Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.

   Thierry IV., King of the Franks
   (Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.

{3108}

THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

THIN.
THINÆ.

      See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

THING.
THINGVALLA.
ALTHING.

   "The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen
   represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and
   allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many
   local names throughout England, and more especially in the
   extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and
   where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as
   an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the
   Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of
   Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air
   assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly
   going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the
   governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known
   as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed
   in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and
   Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,
   and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well
   as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or
   great council."

      _R. R. Sharpe,
      Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
      volume 1._

   "By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,
   a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the
   coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened
   their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement
   of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were
   called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was
   independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of
   two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of
   nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon
   arrived when the progress of political thought began to work
   upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of
   local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a
   commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The
   Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of
   lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles
   deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,
   between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,
   (Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost
   to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or
   Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …
   This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that
   is known to history."

      _G. L. Gomme,
      Primitive Folk-Moots,
      chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Dasent,
      introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."_

      See, also, NORMANS.
      NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

THINGMEN.

      See HOUSECARLS.

THINIS.

      See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;
      also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.

THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.
   Ceded to France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

THIRD ESTATE, The.

   See ESTATES, THE THREE.

THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.

      See
      MASSACHUSETTS;
      RHODE ISLAND;
      CONNECTICUT;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE;
      NEW YORK;
      NEW JERSEY;
      PENNSYLVANIA;
      DELAWARE:
      MARYLAND;
      VIRGINIA;
      NORTH CAROLINA;
      SOUTH CAROLINA;
      GEORGIA;

      also, NEW ENGLAND.

THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:
      and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.

THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.

   "In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in
   number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were
   revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,
   thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made
   binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."

      _T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 12._

THIS,
THINIS.

      See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;
      also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.

THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.

      See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.

THISTLE, Order of the.

   A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.

THOMAS, General George H.:
   Campaign against Zollicoffer.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

   Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

   At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;
      and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   The Atlanta campaign.

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

   Campaign against Hood.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
      and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

THORN, Peace of (1466).

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

"THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

THRACE: B. C. 323-281.
   The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.

{3109}

THRACIANS, The.

   "That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and
   Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian
   tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the
   innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or
   Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race
   known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or
   under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …
   Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and
   character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great
   uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a
   few particularities. … The general character of the race
   presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the
   presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It
   appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side
   of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of
   this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,
   also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to
   present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in
   those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed
   not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of
   Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important
   differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with
   mercenary troops and slaves."

      _G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 26._

   "Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its
   prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the
   Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in
   resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …
   No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the
   Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it
   broke up into several principalities."

      _E. Curtius,
      History of Greece,
      book 7, chapter 1._

   "Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest
   of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the
   Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,
   and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as
   having any historically memorable course of its own. … The
   Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of
   peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful
   influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the
   place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their
   wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be
   conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty
   outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal
   mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating
   sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of
   blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous
   excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious
   and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of
   the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of
   vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and
   the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.
   46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman
   province.

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 6._

   In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which
   had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and
   which, in the first century of our era, had excited the
   attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it
   occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had
   formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian
   tribes."

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire,
      book 1, chapter 1, section 1._

THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.

   A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the
   Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in
   certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the
   works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the
   church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A
   solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the
   fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and
   anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication
   the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially
   cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In
   the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period
   of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an
   obscure angle of the Venetian province."

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

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Milman,
      History of Latin Christianity,
      book 1, chapter 4._

THREE F'S. The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

THREE HENRYS. War of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.

      See THEBES: B. C. 378.

THREE KINGS, Battle of the.

      See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.

THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.

      See TRISKELION.

THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.

      See AMPHIPOLIS.

THUGS.
THUGGEE.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

THULE.

   Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as
   supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce
   the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it
   vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of
   Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land
   nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,
   resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me
   impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach
   to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the
   existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to
   the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it
   is impossible to say."

      _E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 15, section 2, foot-note._

   Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the
   coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,
   whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and
   Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the
   most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge
   reached.

      _R. F. Burton,
      Ultima Thule,
      introduction, section 1 (volume 1)._

{3110}

THUNDERING LEGION, The.

   During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the
   Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,
   on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous
   position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all
   access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last
   extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous
   storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while
   lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the
   barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed
   this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of
   one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian
   writers told a different story. They relate that the
   distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of
   Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being
   called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a
   prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion
   was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering
   Legion.

      _P. B. Watson,
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Eusebius,
      Ecclesiastical History,
      book 5, chapter 5._

THURII.
THURIUM.

      See SIRIS.

THURINGIA.
THURINGIANS, The.

   "To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the
   Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had
   united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the
   borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the
   Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,
   one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had
   distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is
   not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but
   Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of
   Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to
   excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the
   motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul
   to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their
   defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his
   brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the
   Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province
   was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,
   during two centuries, marched under the standards of the
   Merovingians."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      The French under the Merovingians,
      chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. C. Perry,
      The Franks,
      chapter 3._

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

THURINGIA:
   Absorbed in Saxony.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.

      See POST.

THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

THYNIANS. The.

      See BITHYNIANS.

TIBARENIANS, The.

   A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
   Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.

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

TIBBOOS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.

      See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

TIBERIUS,
   Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.

   German campaigns.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

   Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.

   Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.

TIBET.

   "The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west
   portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of
   Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions
   of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the
   orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys
   opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum
   ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually
   been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has
   pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as
   'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the
   confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is
   also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the
   same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to
   designate two countries widely differing in their physical and
   political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.
   Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word
   meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and
   this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the
   seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of
   Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present
   inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the
   Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name
   restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern
   slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang
   —that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or
   Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and
   Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the
   inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal
   Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of
   Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000
   or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan
   plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted
   with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland
   seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the
   frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan
   Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state
   in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks
   chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.
   Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its
   defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those
   of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains
   still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart
   from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various
   independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a
   distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,
   with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking
   contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,
   while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and
   feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people
   in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of
   their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected
   dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of
   music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for
   their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a
   flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of
   law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are
   scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their
   own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers
   against all strangers.
{3111}
   The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese
   frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of
   the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably
   constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …
   The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some
   respects they are even more civilised than those of many
   European countries, for reading and writing are general
   accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap
   that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several
   of these works are kept simply on account of their magical
   properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has
   been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,
   and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which
   the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the
   language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has
   nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a
   pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the
   Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'
   is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of
   his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own
   pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he
   consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,
   while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing
   his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual
   matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy
   chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high
   priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war
   must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to
   the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all
   receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan
   mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign
   of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth
   year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,
   receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The
   whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely
   temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very
   houses and furniture and all movable property are held in
   trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful
   if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the
   administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,
   is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house
   and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by
   begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are
   these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a
   distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to
   Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and
   other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet
   proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,
   or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these
   provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either
   enjoy self-government or are directly administered from
   Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities
   interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in
   that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to
   Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be
   awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,
   which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a
   dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in
   Lassa."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. Bower,
      Diary of a Journey across Tibet,
      chapter 16._

TIBISCUS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Theiss.

TIBUR.

   An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it
   was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many
   wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th
   century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood
   became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in
   later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been
   identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,
   but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to
   have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of
   Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.

      _R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 14._

TIBURTINE SIBYL.

      See SIBYLS.

TICINUS, Battle on the.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-
   Built by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.
   Reconstructed by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.
   The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.
   Taken by General Amherst.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.
   Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.

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

TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.
   Recapture by Burgoyne.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).

      See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

TIERRA FIRME.

   "The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
   what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
   easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
   were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
   they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
   coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
   as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
   firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
   were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
   general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
   for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
   As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
   became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
   names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
   a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
   itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
   to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
   far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
   struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
   equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
   had existence for a long time.
{3112}
   It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
   which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
   The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
   its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
   was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
   and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
   of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
   two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
   the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
   often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
   which is misleading."

      _H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, page 290, foot-note._

      See, also, SPANISH MAIN.

TIERS ETAT.

      See ESTATES, THE THREE.

TIGORINI,
TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.

   After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109
   B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant
   conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves
   stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn
   for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and
   had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through
   their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.
   Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni
   (position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)
   crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges
   (about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul
   Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed
   itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which
   the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,
   along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their
   death."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 5._

   Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
   but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
   Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
   Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.

TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.

      See GORDYENE.

TILDEN, Samuel J.
   In the Free Soil Movement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

   The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.
   Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.

TILSIT, Treaty of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

TIMAR.
TIMARLI.
SAIM.
SPAHI.

   "It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all
   conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on
   conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,
   obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,
   ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European
   fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a
   proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the
   sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere
   creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution
   recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a
   democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was
   modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and
   smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were
   called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had
   assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,
   which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the
   sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours
   ('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."

      _T. H. Dyer,
      The History of Modern Europe,
      volume 1, introduction._

      See, also, SPAHIS.

TIMOCRACY.

      See GEOMORI.

TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.

TIMOUR, The Conquests of.

   "Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was
   called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,
   from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European
   writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was
   of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the
   mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town
   near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early
   youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty
   chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had
   fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed
   Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of
   the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of
   his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that
   dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the
   thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the
   great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and
   the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his
   career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of
   the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of
   twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine
   several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a
   conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor
   Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor
   Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a
   portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of
   subjugated fellow-creatures."

      _E. S. Creasy,
      History of the Ottoman Turks,
      chapter 3._

   "Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his
   direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title
   of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a
   descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of
   whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may
   in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all
   practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as
   Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they
   had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of
   Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 6._

{3113}

   In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he
   subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He
   then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of
   the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of
   Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of
   its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a
   period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again
   in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous
   "Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a
   large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror
   completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,
   extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and
   piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of
   Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career
   of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his
   campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the
   Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as
   Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible
   savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but
   it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and
   the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and
   desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which
   was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent
   conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of
   slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious
   purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which
   were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the
   Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of
   the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned
   from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the
   20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the
   enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his
   kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes
   swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.
   Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the
   Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the
   sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary
   pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large
   enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by
   alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of
   Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When
   satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested
   there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition
   to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken
   in pieces.

      _A. Vambery,
      History of Bokhara,
      chapters 10, 11, 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Hutton,
      Central Asia,
      chapters 5-6._

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 65._

      _A. Lamartine,
      History of Turkey,
      book 7._

      _H. G. Smith,
      Romance of History,
      chapter 4._

TIMUCHI.

   This was the name given to the members of the senate or
   council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.

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

TIMUCUA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

TINNEH.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TIOCAJAS, Battles of.

      See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.

TIROL.

      See TYROL.

TIRSHATHA.

   An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions
   corresponded with those of High Sheriff.

      _H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      book 5, section 1._

TIRYNS.

      See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.

TITHE.

   "To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards
   God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition
   among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The
   custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."

      _H. Ewald.
      Antiquities of Israel,
      introduction, 3d section, II., 3_.

   Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates
   from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.
   In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should
   pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the
   bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the
   legatine councils held in England."

      _W. Stubbs.
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1)._

TITHE OF SALADIN.

      See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.

TITHES, Irish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

TITIES, The.

      See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.

TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.

TIVITIVAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

TIVOLI.

      See TIBUR.

TLACOPAN.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

TLASCALA.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

T'LINKETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

TOBACCO:
   Its introduction into the Old World from the New.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

   The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

TOBACCO NATION, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

TOBAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

TOGA, The Roman.

   "The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was
   originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly
   than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the
   shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak
   …, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it
   to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others
   construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a
   circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results
   arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'
   page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a
   quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off
   into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to
   about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of
   the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same
   length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded
   lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in
   folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder
   in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,
   however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the
   ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled
   across the back and through the right arm, the ends being
   again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the
   drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the
   right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …
   The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally
   clung more tightly to the body."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 95._

{3114}

   "No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the
   toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great
   formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and
   folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as
   it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left
   unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the
   wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in
   early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods
   this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas
   of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,
   and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial
   process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was
   left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga
   pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called
   pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round
   gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by
   all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights
   wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."

      _T. Hope,
      Costume of the Ancients,
      volume 1._

TOGATI, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 275.

TOGGENBURG WAR, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.

TOHOMES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).

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

TOISECH.

      See RI.

TOISON D'OR.

   The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
   English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."

      See GOLDEN FLEECE.

TOLBIAC, Battle of.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.
   Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.
   The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.
   Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.
   Recovery from the Moors.

   On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of
   Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of
   the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the
   death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son
   Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as
   invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.
   After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,
   the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied
   for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants
   and successors.

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

TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
   Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
   Siege and surrender.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

TOLEDO, Councils of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).

      See FRANCE: A. D, 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy
   In Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

   In Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.

TOLERATION ACT, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;
      also, ALMOHADES.

TOLTECS, The.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

TOMI.

   An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,
   which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by
   the modern town of Kustendje.

TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

TONIKAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.

TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.

TONKIN.
COCHIN-CHINA.
ANNAM.
CAMBOJA.

   "The whole region which recent events have practically
   converted into French territory comprises four distinct
   political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the
   centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first
   two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a
   single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.
   This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified
   form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to
   the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards
   extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of
   that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the
   third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application
   to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China
   under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration
   to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and
   fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,
   Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally
   applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has
   in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the
   northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under
   the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and
   sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the
   administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its
   conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in
   much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State
   Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range
   projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth
   century and running in the same direction. After the erection
   of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North
   Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and
   southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the
   titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and
   'Inner Route.'
{3115}
   The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,
   has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city
   of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,
   that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this
   region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from
   its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable
   derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old
   Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)
   nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the
   arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the
   coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills
   in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and
   intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose
   energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to
   resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare
   between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly
   historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was
   then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was
   divided into prefectures, and a civil and military
   organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the
   ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching
   (Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had
   already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In
   1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the
   Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced
   all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives
   to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was
   followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime
   provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)
   Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had
   usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was
   acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in
   1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne
   with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802
   reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese
   sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more
   frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national
   party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are
   dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made
   rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to
   cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests
   and occasional intervention of France, this policy is
   persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by
   order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for
   more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly
   captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of
   the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the
   forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),
   capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established
   French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,
   ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,
   provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened
   and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate
   of Camboja and the important strategical position of
   'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific
   expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes
   entertained of that river giving access to the trade of
   Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the
   Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in
   Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded
   with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way
   for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,
   followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin
   [see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of
   1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole
   of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all
   diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,
   except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the
   appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full
   administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national
   autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin
   and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French
   possession."

      _A. H. Keane,
      Eastern Geography,
      pages 98-104._

   "In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
   Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
   historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
   at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
   According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
   the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
   Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
   ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
   the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
   state under French protection, which is limited east and west
   by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
   Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
   prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
   Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
   Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
   Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
   shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
   the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
   the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
   local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
   data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
   his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
   Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
   claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
   relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
   which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
   eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
   Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
   the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
   of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
   French protectorate, the political institutions of the
   Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
   still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
   subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
   dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
   royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
   and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
   of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
   slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
   purchase their freedom. …
{3116}
   On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
   dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
   of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
   other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
   Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
   akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
   records they have gradually spread along the coast from
   Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
   driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
   1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
   Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
   the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
   Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
   population."

      _É. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 3, chapter 22._

TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.

      See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;
      also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.

TONQUIN.

      See TONKIN.

TONTONTEAC.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

TONTOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

TOPASSES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

TOQUIS.

      See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.

TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

TORGAU: A. D. 1525.
   Protestant League.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.

TORGAU: A. D. 1645.
   Yielded to the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

TORGAU: A. D. 1760.
   Victory of Frederick the Great.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

TORGAU: A. D. 1813.
   Siege and capture by the Allies.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

TORIES, English:
   Origin of the Party and the Name.

      See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
      and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

TORIES, English:
   Of the American Revolution, and their exile.

   "Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were
   practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother
   country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the
   cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the
   governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution
   the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the
   enemy, until for a time it might be said that all
   revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,
   was still applied to those who, though opposed to the
   usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation
   from England."

      _G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      page 269._

   "The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
   piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
   easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
   leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
   adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
   penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
   the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
   those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
   to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
   patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
   avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
   were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
   So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
   despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
   any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
   respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
   general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
   resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
   forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
   the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
   Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
   rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
   to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
   estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
   at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
   reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
   prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
   fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
   human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
   months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
   Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
   delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
   loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
   forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
   continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
   They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
   British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
   character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
   departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
   measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
   estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
   hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
   in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
   additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
   provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]
   sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
   numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
   shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
   time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
   for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
   settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
   At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
   council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
   disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
   order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
   the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
   daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
   joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
   separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
   names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
   representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
   observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
   Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
   Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
   north bank.
{3117}
   Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
   Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
   Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
   then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
   … As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
   took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
   is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).

      _G. E. Ellis,
      The Loyalists and their Fortunes
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, pages 185-214)._

   "Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years
   following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is
   estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the
   sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present
   support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her
   hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British
   Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."

      _G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 7, section 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Ryerson,
      The Loyalists of America and their Times._

      _L. Sabine,
      Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America._

TORNOSA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TORO, Battle of (1476).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

TOROMONOS, The.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.

TORONTO: A. D. 1749.
   The hospitable origin of the city.

   "The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to
   the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named
   Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a
   stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept
   them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French
   interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus
   the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."

      _F. Parkman,
      Montcalm and Wolfe,
      chapter 3 (volume 1)._

TORONTO: A. D. 1813.
   Taken and burned by the Americans.

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

TORONTO: A. D. 1837.
   The Mackenzie rising.
   Defeat of the rebels.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

TORQUES.

   "The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended
   sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found
   in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic
   tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the
   Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but
   the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from
   the Latin."

      _S. Birch,
      On the Torc of the Celts
      (Archaeological Journal, volume 2)._

TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
      and 1810-1812.

TORTONA: A. D. 1155.
   Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.
   Spanish capture and sack.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

TORTUGAS:
   The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

TORTURE.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.

TORY.

      See TORIES.

TOTEMS.

   "A peculiar social institution exists among the [North
   American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I
   am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the
   tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so
   general, and its influence on political relations so
   important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,
   independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,
   and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each
   clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,
   beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of
   the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,
   the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the
   language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the
   name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being
   connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or
   less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf
   cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from
   the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows
   that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan
   can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled
   together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of
   different clans. To different totems attach different degrees
   of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and
   the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of
   his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the
   members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak
   different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound
   together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is
   killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge
   him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a
   cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose
   face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain
   privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes
   reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a
   sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious
   ceremonies or magic rites."

      _F. Parkman,
      Conspiracy of Pontiac,
      chapter 1._

   "A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
   with superstitious respect, believing that there exists
   between him and every member of the class an intimate and
   altogether special relation. The name is derived from an
   Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of
   which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into
   literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian
   interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The
   connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;
   the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for
   the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an
   animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As
   distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated
   individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species
   of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate
   natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.
   Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three
   kinds:—

   (1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by
   inheritance from generation to generation;

   (2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all
   the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the
   other sex;

   (3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and
   not passing to his descendants."

      _J. G. Frazer,
      Totemism,
      pages 1-2._

      ALSO IN:
      _L. H. Morgan,
      League of the Iroquois,
      chapter 4._

      _L. H. Morgan,
      Ancient Society,
      part 2._

      _L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,
      Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
      appendix B._

      _W. R. Smith,
      Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,
      chapter 7._

{3118}

TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

TOTONACOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.

TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Possession acquired by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

TOUL: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
   Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
   English aid called in.
   Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
      and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

   ----------TOULOUSE: Start--------

TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.
   Acquisition by the Romans.

   Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ
   Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the
   upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation
   of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106
   B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages
   which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the
   people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the
   garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that
   provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the
   year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him
   within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to
   do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of
   which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was
   sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,
   its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused
   of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at
   Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a
   proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.
   The Gothic kingdom.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.
   Repulse of the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.
   Made a county of Aquitaine.

      See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.
   The rise of the Counts.

   The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes
   of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,
   under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers
   but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In
   the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or
   Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called
   them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their
   ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania
   Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.
   But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by
   the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the
   following century again rose to great importance and
   distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count
   Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the
   name of the little county which had been his earliest
   possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread
   over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.
   In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,
   which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,
   lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the
   Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse
   itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half
   the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence
   was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the
   chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he
   left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian
   heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in
   1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius
   succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his
   claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger
   son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were
   disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left
   an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King
   Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William
   VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point
   whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the
   rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and
   changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to
   interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a
   land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as
   far as possible untouched."

      _K. Norgate,
      England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume I, chapter 10._

      See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

TOULOUSE: 12th Century.
   The joyous court.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.
   The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.

   See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.
   Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.
   End of the reign of the Counts.

      See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
   The last battle of the Peninsular War.
   Occupation of the city by the English.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

TOURCOIGN, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.
   Capture by the English.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.
   Ceded to France.

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

TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.
   Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

{3119}

TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
   Siege.
   Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
   Restoration at the Peace.

      See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
      A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.
   Battles near the city.
   Surrender to the French.

   FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

   ----------TOURNAY: End--------

TOURNEY.
TOURNAMENT.
JOUST.

   "The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin
   'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of
   these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of
   manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to
   strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from
   his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were
   always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;
   the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered
   his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,
   bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It
   was important, therefore, that constant exercise should
   accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he
   must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of
   him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas
   d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise
   was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single
   combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their
   arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general
   battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of
   cavalry equal in number."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      France under the Feudal System
      (Translated by W. Bellingham),
      chapter 8._

TOURS: A. D. 732.
   Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;
      also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

TOURS: A. D. 1870.
   Seat of a part of the provisional
   Government of National Defense.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.

   This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso
   V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the
   order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a
   tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy
   that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian
   king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of
   northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.
   Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."

      _S. A. Dunham.
      History of Spain and Portugal,
      volume 3, page 225 (American edition)._

TOWER OF LONDON, The.

   "Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards
   the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the
   State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred
   great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower
   Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two
   young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of
   the Tower itself."

      _Goldwin Smith,
      A Trip to England,
      page 56._

   "Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among
   palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of
   Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in
   favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular
   use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near
   some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon
   Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon
   stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we
   have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the
   Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the
   great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,
   council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns
   and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."

      _W. H. Dixon,
      Her Majesty's Tower,
      chapter 1._

   "We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present
   Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of
   Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was
   suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned
   by Stow is 1078."

      _J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,
      Memoirs of the Tower of London,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Lord de Ros,
      Memorials of the Tower._

TOWN.

   "Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various
   shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind
   from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in
   ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer
   word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in
   some English dialects is still applied to a single house and
   its surroundings."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      City and Borough
      (Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889)._

      See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.

TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.

TOWNSHIP.

   "In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
   conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
   The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
   not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
   Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
   History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
   constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
   then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
   followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
   in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
   understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
   have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
   'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
   merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
   Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
   under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
   some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
   possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
   that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
   such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
   where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
   of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
   village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
   term for 'the villagers.' …
{3120}
   Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
   found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
   translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
   laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
   The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
   investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
   until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
   its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
   deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
   continued to be the common popular term for what we may
   describe in general language as a rural centre of population
   even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
   word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
   naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
   ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
   migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
   naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
   no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
   change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
   tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
   that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
   scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
   of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
   the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
   sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
   freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
   assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
   We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
   that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
   question as to the position of the body of the population in
   the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
   no student would say that at present the question is settled."

      _W. J. Ashley,
      The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
      (Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894)._

TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.

   "When people from England first came to dwell in the
   wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon
   small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be
   known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of
   individuals or of separate families, but of
   church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the
   settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township
   would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed
   within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all
   the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming
   on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally
   situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with
   the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for
   defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and
   common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and
   after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their
   appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind
   of government which we may describe in the present tense, for
   its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two
   centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly
   govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak
   with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of
   one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax
   themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as
   early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is
   held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected
   to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions
   or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in
   the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,
   which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as
   ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating
   to the administration of town affairs are discussed and
   adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public
   expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town
   taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are
   elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of
   the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or
   nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish
   government brought into a new country and adapted to the new
   situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact
   that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no
   longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a
   manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names
   had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was
   now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,
   'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a
   great part of the United States. … New York had from the very
   beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local
   self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,
   which under the English rule were developed into
   town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New
   England. … The New York system is of especial interest,
   because it has powerfully influenced the development of local
   institutions throughout the Northwest."

      _J. Fiske,
      Civil Government in the United States,
      chapters 2 and 4._

   "The name town first occurs in the record of the second
   colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
   Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
   Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
   of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
   the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
   the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
   certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
   deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
   to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
   affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
   inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
   consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
   was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
   be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
   affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
   which time the earliest extant records were made, three
   persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
   of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
   perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
   inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
   1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
   presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
   governors. …
{3121}
   The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
   and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
   government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
   the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
   have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
   represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
   Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
   representation still subsists."

      _J. G. Palfrey,
      History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 9._

   "Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the
   town organization, probably the most generally able and
   intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part
   in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New
   England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for
   independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon
   race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of
   the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel
   Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the
   creature of the town-meeting."

      _J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4)._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Channing,
      Town and County Government in the English Colonies
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10)._

      See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;
      and SELECTMEN.

TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).

   On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met
   on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between
   the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention
   of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The
   battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed
   English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until
   the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been
   variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to
   38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of
   Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry
   VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

      _C. Ransome,
      Battle of Towton
      (English Historical Review, July, 1889)._

TOXANDRIA.

   After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.
   358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the
   Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was
   then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to
   be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. …
   This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny,
   and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age.
   Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended
   from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal
   and the Rhine."

      _E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 19, with foot-note._

      See, also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

TOXARCHI, The.

   The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch
   (known as Scythians) were so called.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 11. _

TRACHIS.
TRACHINIA.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).

TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
TRACT NINETY.

      See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

TRADES UNIONS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

TRAFALGAR, Naval Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

TRAJAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 98-117.

TRAJAN'S WALL.

   The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards
   completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was
   carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's
   Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a
   mound and a ditch."

      _Church and Brodribb,
      Notes to the Germany of Tacitus,
      chapter 29._

TRAMELI, The.

      See LYCIANS.

TRANSALPINE.

   Beyond the Alps, looking from the Roman standpoint.

TRANSLEITHANIA.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

TRANSOXANIA.

      See BOKHARA.

TRANSPADANE GAUL.

   Cisalpine Gaul north of the Padus, or Po.

      See PADUS.

TRANSRHENANE.

   Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is,
   on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.

TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC, The.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TRANSYLVANIA: Early history.

      See DACIA.

TRANSYLVANIA: The Huns in possession.

      See HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

TRANSYLVANIA: 12th Century.
   Conquest by Hungary.
   Settlement of Germans.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.
   John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.
   His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.
   His appeal to the Turks.
   The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
   Struggles between the Austrian and the Turk.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1606-1660.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1575.
   Stephen Batory, the Duke, elected King of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D: 1599-1601.
   Wallachian conquest.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1606.
   Yoke of the Ottomans partly broken.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
   Recovery of independence from the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699.
   Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks,
   in the Treaty of Carlowitz.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

TRANSYLVANIA, The Kentucky colony of.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

TRAPPISTS.

   The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists.
   "This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging
   to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established
   [A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and
   undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of
   shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become
   scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was
   reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in
   1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the
   monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of
   absolute silence.

      _C. Lancelot,
      A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
      volume 1, pages 113-186._

{3122}

TRASIMENE, Lake, Battle of (B. C. 217).

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

TRASTEVERE.

   Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of
   Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which
   belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."

      _B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 103._

TRAUSI, The.

      See THRACIANS.

TRAVENDAHL, Treaty of (1700).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697-1700.

TRAVENSTADT, Battle of (1706).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

TREASON.

      See MAJESTAS.

TREATIES.

   The Treaties of which account is given in this work are so
   numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
   references to them under this general heading. They are
   severally indexed under the names by which they are
   historically known.

TREATY PORTS, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1812.

TREBIA,
TREBBIA,
   Battle of the.

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

   Battle.

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

TREBIZOND:
   Origin of the city.

   "Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as
   an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour
   from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had
   constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by
   nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."

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

TREBIZOND: A. D. 258.
   Capture by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.
   The Greek empire.

   "The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The
   destruction of a distant central government, when
   Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left
   [the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it
   had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of
   whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was
   descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This
   youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming
   the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the
   local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its
   name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was
   hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond
   exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to
   its being nothing more than a continuation of a
   long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no
   attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who
   grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the
   shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of
   Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the
   family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who
   had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from
   the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the
   coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar,
   possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by
   the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been
   popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to
   collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this
   force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204,
   about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the
   Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on
   crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate
   representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to
   prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of
   females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III.
   (Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he
   assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he
   appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the
   Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help
   of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor
   with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into
   collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who
   had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first,
   that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the
   movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires
   was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius
   took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many
   years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded
   extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or
   Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to
   that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued
   in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the
   grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if
   not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to
   have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial
   power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on
   its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all
   the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so
   close was the alliance of interest that these districts
   remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the
   period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the
   empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and
   maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more
   compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur.
   At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced
   to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from
   Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with
   some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass,
   "few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility,
   or so great security for private property." The commerce of
   Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent
   quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief
   managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the
   empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in
   its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman
   conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the
   Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to
   Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted
   to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions
   of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a
   plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their
   bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of
   the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a
   grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of
   Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its
   place was taken by a Moslem colony.

      _G. Finlay,
      History of the Empire of Trebizond
      (History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond)._

{3123}

TREBONIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

TREK, The Great.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

TREMONT, The Name.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.

TRENT, The Council of.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRENT AFFAIR, The.

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

TRENTON: A. D. 1776.
   The surprise of the Hessians.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.

   ----------TRÈVES: Start--------

TRÈVES:
   Origin.

   Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom
   it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony
   there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta
   was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.

      See TREVIRI.

TRÈVES:
   Under the Romans.

   "The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the
   first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic
   province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of
   the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the
   province and the seat of the governors, an author from the
   time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the
   chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of
   Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling
   of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul,
   Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme
   administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and
   thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul,
   their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century
   says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."

      _T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 8, chapter 3._

TRÈVES: A. D. 306.
   The Ludi Francici at.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 306.

TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376.
   Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.

      See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.

TRÈVES: A. D. 402.
   Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152.
   Origin of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1675.
   Taken from the French by the Imperialists.

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

TRÈVES: A. D. 1689.
   Threatened destruction by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1697.
   Restored to the Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1704.
   Taken by Marlborough.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Extinction of the Electorate.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

   ----------TRÈVES: End--------

TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
      CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.

TREVIRI, The.

   The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time,
   "whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both
   sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the
   Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."

      _G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 8._

TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.

TRIAD SOCIETY, OR
WATER-LILY SECT, The.

   The most extensive of the many secret societies among the
   Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad
   Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien
   kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the
   government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some
   other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In
   fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under
   its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost
   openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years,
   the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."

      _The Chinese Rebellion
      (North American Review, July, 1854)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Abbé Huc,
      Christianity in China, &c.
      volume 2, pages 274-277._

      _H. A. Giles,
      Historic China,
      pages 395-399._

TRIAL BY COMBAT.

      See WAGER OF BATTLE.

TRIANON TARIFF, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

TRIARII.

      See LEGION, ROMAN.

TRIBE.
TRIBUS.

      See ROME, THE BEGINNING.

TRIBES, Greek.

      See PHYLÆ.

TRIBOCES, The.

   A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks
   of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand
   Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.

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

      See, also, VANGIONES.

TRIBON, The.

   A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan
   youths, and sometimes by old men.

      _C. C. Felton,
      Greece, Ancient and Modern,
      course 2, lecture 7._

TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.

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

TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.

      See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.

TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.

      See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.

TRIBUTUM, The.

   The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in
   the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a
   loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war
   out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was
   justified in living at the expense of her subjects was
   formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the
   tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was
   abolished, because the government could dispense with it after
   the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of
   the administration were now put off upon the subjects."

      _W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4)._

TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

TRICASSES.

   The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.

{3124}

TRICHINOPOLY:
   Siege and relief (1751).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.

   The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient
   Latin name of the town.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.

TRIERARCHY.

      See LITURGIES.

TRINACRIA.

   The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.

TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498.
   Discovery by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801.
   Acquisition by England.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

TRINITY HOUSE.

   "Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting
   example of the innate power and varied developments of the old
   gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it
   to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as
   an institution of high national importance, whose history is
   entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the
   welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an
   age when the tendency is to assume state control over all
   matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary
   corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its
   faithful labours, through a long course of years, have
   established its right and title. Although its earliest records
   appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that
   Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood
   already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the
   shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and
   lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession,
   are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places;
   in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn
   and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were
   one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also
   had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also
   happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for
   seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The
   objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the
   Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just
   about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed.
   … The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has
   always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than
   144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late
   years their funds applicable to such purposes have been
   curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the
   name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the
   title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford
   Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of
   the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to
   the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant
   with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To
   cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a
   supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were
   their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as
   administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at
   Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the
   direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566,
   established which throws considerable light on the position of
   the company at that time, endued them with the power of
   preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round
   the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How
   far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be
   interesting to know whether their progress round the whole
   shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its
   work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and
   beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general
   public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the
   corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private
   proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are
   therefore at present under their efficient central control. …
   The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important
   provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen,
   ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of
   piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of
   the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and
   armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain
   consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand
   from the author's careful researches among state papers and
   the muniments of the corporation."

      _Lucy T. Smith,
      Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond";
      by C. R. B. Barrett
      (English Historical Review, April, 1894)._

TRINOBANTES, The.

   The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to
   submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now
   embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their
   chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where
   the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern
   city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare,
   was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power.
   One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most
   obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the
   conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.

      _E. L. Cutts,
      Colchester,
      chapters 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 51._

      See also,
      BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

TRIOBOLON.

   Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens
   who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards
   paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the
   people.

      _A. Boeckh,
      Public Economy of Athens,
      book 2, chapter 15._

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.

   There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in
   European history; see, for example.

      NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

   But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is
   that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the
   three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and
   renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no
   doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with
   France.

   ----------TRIPOLI: Start--------

TRIPOLI, North Africa:
   Origin of the name of.

      See LEPTIS MAGNA.

{3125}

TRIPOLI, North Africa:
   History.

      See BARBARY STATES.

TRIPOLI, Syria:
   Capture by the Crusaders.
   Destruction of the Library.
   Formation of the Latin county.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111;
      and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.

TRIPONTIUM.

   A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed
   the Avon, near modern Lilburne.

      _T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon,
      chapter 5._

TRISAGION, The.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

TRI-SKELION.
GAMMADION.
FYLFOT-CROSS.
SVASTIKA.

   "One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a
   symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more
   familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears
   on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of
   Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but
   not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but
   of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient
   name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man,
   on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that
   island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its
   triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three
   cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of
   Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an
   identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island
   are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of
   several old English families, and it was in all probability
   first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader
   returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is
   but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the
   'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by
   Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively
   proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient
   city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing
   within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning
   the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of
   its coins by the decisive legend _MEΣ卍_. … The gammadion
   has travelled further afield than any other symbol of
   antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to
   the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to
   the 13th century B. C."

      _The Athenœum, August 13, 1802
      (Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's
      "La Migration des Symboles")._

TRITTYES.

      See PHYLÆ.

TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.

   "The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal
   entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real
   merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and
   dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the
   results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest.
   Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican
   times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to
   enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being
   granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis
   auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious
   campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was
   impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to
   Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the
   claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case
   in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been
   killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the
   procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and
   confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through
   which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The
   temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars.
   Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with
   festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the
   meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and
   Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the
   'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and
   numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while
   lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city
   dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. …
   Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to
   detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen
   with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally,
   preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal
   chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the
   tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the
   Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot
   holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a
   servus publicus standing behind him held the corona
   triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the
   procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the
   circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by
   way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and
   the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his
   golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and
   sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted
   for less important conquests, or to a general for victories
   not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga
   prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in
   later times he rode on horseback."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 100._

      See, also, VIA SACRA.

TRIUMVIRATE,
   The First.

      See ROME: B. C. 63-58.

   The Second.

      See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

TROISVILLE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

TROJA.
TROY.
TROAD.
ILIUM.

   "In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia
   Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern
   projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,
   Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,
   abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were
   the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it
   concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the
   Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by
   Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the
   mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the
   Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous
   Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,
   Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,
   founded the city of Dardania.
{3126}
   Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the
   tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island
   lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had
   settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;
   at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and
   introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between
   Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew
   the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between
   the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this
   intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the
   Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the
   Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations
   of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to
   either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,
   Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of
   the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into
   rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the
   Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his
   bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a
   narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat
   plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle
   declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the
   innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with
   precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river
   breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by
   Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle
   declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the
   earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the
   abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the
   same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the
   immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above
   is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same
   rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the
   Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day
   the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and
   render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets
   was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;
   over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view
   from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond
   the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient
   world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."

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

   The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted
   above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander
   than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are
   believed by many scholars to have now established the location
   of ancient Troy.

      _H. Schliemann,
      Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans._

   "Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven
   successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at
   Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the
   discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or
   Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or
   so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the
   character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later
   Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he
   could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth
   layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the
   excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in
   the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii,
   2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly
   establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great
   temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the
   acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis
   belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought
   to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides
   'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the
   Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the
   identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the
   period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that
   only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for
   this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be
   referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a
   magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered,
   although its architecture and the character of the finds
   suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in
   Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been
   exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of
   pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been
   brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the
   ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ,
   though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness
   of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building
   contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld
   uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and
   found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater
   height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A
   strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner
   staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture
   this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek
   antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing
   of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to
   the historical Greek period, did we not know that in
   historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the
   erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in
   Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer
   stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive
   foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and
   the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the
   same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and
   also pottery of the Mykenæan style."

      _The Nation,
      November 30, 1893._

   "The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant
   Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.
   Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was
   readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.
   Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,
   instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new
   problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the
   works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient
   by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore
   decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,
   however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this
   led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by
   the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,
   with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may
   possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's
   excavations obscured rather than aided this particular
   investigation.
{3127}
   The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space
   covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,
   in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which
   Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has
   uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,
   and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be
   assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."

      _The Nation,
      August 9, 1894._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Schuchardt,
      Schliemann's Excavations._

      See, also,
      ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
      and HOMER.

TROPAION.

   The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on
   the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was
   constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 54._

TROPPAU, Congress of.

      See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.

TROUBADOURS.
TROUVÈRES.
JOGLARS.
JONGLEURS.

   "The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called
   themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or
   'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the
   Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of
   poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this
   description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in
   which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year
   1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although
   there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest
   period of their existence. … In regard to the time within
   which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel
   assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more
   conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first
   commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to
   the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of
   the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to
   1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which
   extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of
   its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."

      _G. J. Adler,
      Introduction to Fauriel's
      "History of Provençal Poetry."_

   "Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical
   over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two
   branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and
   social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them,
   and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great
   divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively
   described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and
   generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most
   distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established
   that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and
   foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the
   Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses
   and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably
   comprehensive definition."

      _F. Hueffer,
      The Troubadours,
      chapter 6._

   "In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue
   d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language,
   subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the
   Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets,
   giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called
   themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of
   language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the
   Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were
   equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent
   their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and
   where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both
   accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have
   preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing,
   however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that
   remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical
   character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. …
   The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and
   fabliaux."

      _J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 7 (volume 1)._

   "We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of
   Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to
   say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and
   Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for
   the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or
   absolute."

      _G. Saintsbury,
      Short History of French Literature,
      book 1, chapter 1._

TROY.

      See TROJA.

TROYES,
   Treaty of (1420).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.

   Treaty of (1564).

      See FRANCE: A. D, 1563-1564.

TRUCE, The Five Years.

      See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.

TRUCE, The Sacred.

      See OLYMPIC GAMES.

TRUCE, The Thirty Years.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

TRUCE OF GOD, The.

   "This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,
   at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also
   to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy
   and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw
   daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and
   man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts
   of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so
   subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most
   parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his
   command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …
   Every man claimed the right of private war against every other
   man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord
   or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and
   mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A
   movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could
   not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of
   old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of
   Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as
   waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a
   series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical
   decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the
   horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The
   movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and
   rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that
   all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain
   of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in
   that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the
   distinction between public and private war. …
{3128}
   But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in
   practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.
   As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one
   universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and
   other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal
   cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to
   one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they
   engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.
   From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and
   Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the
   establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After
   seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the
   requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found
   vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now
   attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the
   evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in
   this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and
   eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of
   His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be
   kept free from strife and bloodshed."

      _E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Schaff,
      History of the Christian Church,
      volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78._

TRUCELESS WAR, The.

      See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

TRUELLAS, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
      PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

TRYON, Governor, The flight of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

TSHEKHS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.

TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

TUARIKS, The.

      See LIBYANS.

TUATH.

   "Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the
   original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name
   originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify
   also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several
   of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger
   tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the
   kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these
   Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a
   fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial
   king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of
   all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or
   king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated
   by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but
   elective in the individual, the senior of the family being
   usually preferred."

      _W. F. Skene,
      Celtic Scotland,
      volume 3, page 136-150._

TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.

   One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of
   Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been
   extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were
   conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the
   Milesians, or Scots.

      _T. Wright,
      History of Ireland,
      book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

      See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

TUBANTES, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.

TUCUMAN, The province of.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

TUDELA, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

TUDORS, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.

TUGENDBUND, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

TUILERIES, The.

   The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name
   from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the
   vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of
   it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis
   conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the
   Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to
   her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace
   was never very long or very closely connected with the history
   of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in
   that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred
   Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority.
   The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of
   France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did
   Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of
   it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent.
   … The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as
   it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The
   destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a
   lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and
   the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."

      _P. G. Hamerton,
      Paris in Old and Present Times,
      chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _History of Paris
      (London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2._

TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.
   Mobbing of the King.
   The attack of August 10.
   Massacre of the Swiss.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).

TUKUARIKAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

TULCHAN BISHOPS.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.

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

TULLIANUM, The.

      See MAMERTINE PRISON.

TUMULT OF AMBOISE.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

TUMULUS.

   A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.

TUN.
TUNSCIPE.

      See TOWN; TOWNSHIP;
      and BOROUGH.

TUNIC, The Roman.

   "The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton.
   Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple
   original type was never essentially modified by the additions
   of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn
   especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over
   it."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 95._

TUNIS, Ancient.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF;
      also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.

TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271.
   Crusade of Saint Louis.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.

TUNIS: Modern history.

      See BARBARY STATES.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History for ready reference, Volume 4 (of 6): Nicæa to Tunis" ***


Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.