[1] See P. G. Tait "On Listing's _Topologie_," _Phil. Mag._, xvii.
30.
KNOUT (from the French transliteration of a Russian word of Scandinavian
origin; cf. A.-S. _cnotta_, Eng. knot), the whip used in Russia for
flogging criminals and political offenders. It is said to have been
introduced under Ivan III. (1462-1505). The knout had different forms.
One was a lash of raw hide, 16 in. long, attached to a wooden handle, 9
in. long. The lash ended in a metal ring, to which was attached a second
lash as long, ending also in a ring, to which in turn was attached a few
inches of hard leather ending in a beak-like hook. Another kind
consisted of many thongs of skin plaited and interwoven with wire,
ending in loose wired ends, like the cat-o'-nine tails. The victim was
tied to a post or on a triangle of wood and stripped, receiving the
specified number of strokes on the back. A sentence of 100 or 120 lashes
was equivalent to a death sentence; but few lived to receive so many.
The executioner was usually a criminal who had to pass through a
probation and regular training; being let off his own penalties in
return for his services. Peter the Great is traditionally accused of
knouting his son Alexis to death, and there is little doubt that the boy
was actually beaten till he died, whoever was the executioner. The
emperor Nicholas I. abolished the earlier forms of knout and substituted
the pleti, a three-thonged lash. Ostensibly the knout has been abolished
throughout Russia and reserved for the penal settlements.
KNOWLES, SIR JAMES (1831-1908), English architect and editor, was born
in London in 1831, and was educated, with a view to following his
father's profession, as an architect at University College and in Italy.
His literary tastes also brought him at an early age into the field of
authorship. In 1860 he published _The Story of King Arthur_. In 1867 he
was introduced to Tennyson, whose house, Aldworth, on Blackdown, he
designed; this led to a close friendship, Knowles assisting Tennyson in
business matters, and among other things helping to design scenery for
_The Cup_, when Irving produced that play in 1880. Knowles became
intimate with a number of the most interesting men of the day, and in
1869, with Tennyson's co-operation, he started the Metaphysical Society,
the object of which was to attempt some intellectual _rapprochement_
between religion and science by getting the leading representatives of
faith and unfaith to meet and exchange views.
The members from first to last were as follows: Dean Stanley, Seeley,
Roden Noel, Martineau, W. B. Carpenter, Hinton, Huxley, Pritchard,
Hutton, Ward, Bagehot, Froude, Tennyson, Tyndall, Alfred Barry, Lord
Arthur Russell, Gladstone, Manning, Knowles, Lord Avebury, Dean
Alford, Alex. Grant, Bishop Thirlwall, F. Harrison, Father Dalgairns,
Sir G. Grove, Shadworth Hodgson, H. Sidgwick, E. Lushington, Bishop
Ellicott, Mark Pattison, duke of Argyll, Ruskin, Robert Lowe, Grant
Duff, Greg, A. C. Fraser, Henry Acland, Maurice, Archbishop Thomson,
Mozley, Dean Church, Bishop Magee, Croom Robertson, FitzJames Stephen,
Sylvester, J. C. Bucknill, Andrew Clark, W. K. Clifford, St George
Mivart, M. Boulton, Lord Selborne, John Morley, Leslie Stephen, F.
Pollock, Gasquet, C. B. Upton, William Gull, Robert Clarke, A. J.
Balfour, James Sully and A. Barratt.
Papers were read and discussed at the various meetings on such subjects
as the ultimate grounds of belief in the objective and moral sciences,
the immortality of the soul, &c. An interesting description of one of
the meetings was given by Magee (then bishop of Peterborough) in a
letter of 13th of February 1873:--
"Archbishop Manning in the chair was flanked by two Protestant bishops
right and left; on my right was Hutton, editor of the _Spectator_, an
Arian; then came Father Dalgairns, a very able Roman Catholic priest;
opposite him Lord A. Russell, a Deist; then two Scotch metaphysical
writers, Freethinkers; then Knowles, the very broad editor of the
_Contemporary_; then, dressed as a layman and looking like a country
squire, was Ward, formerly Rev. Ward, and earliest of the perverts to
Rome; then Greg, author of _The Creed of Christendom_, a Deist; then
Froude, the historian, once a deacon in our Church, now a Deist; then
Roden Noel, an actual Atheist and red republican, and looking very
like one! Lastly Ruskin, who read a paper on miracles, which we
discussed for an hour and a half! Nothing could be calmer, fairer, or
even, on the whole, more reverent then the discussion. In my opinion,
we, the Christians, had much the best of it. Dalgairns, the priest,
was very masterly; Manning, clever and precise and weighty; Froude,
very acute, and so was Greg. We only wanted a Jew and a Mahommedan to
make our Religious Museum complete" (_Life_, i. 284).
The last meeting of the society was held on 16th May 1880. Huxley said
that it died "of too much love"; Tennyson, "because after ten years of
strenuous effort no one had succeeded in even defining metaphysics."
According to Dean Stanley, "We all meant the same thing if we only knew
it." The society formed the nucleus of the distinguished list of
contributors who supported Knowles in his capacity as an editor. In 1870
he became editor of the _Contemporary Review_, but left it in 1877 and
founded the _Nineteenth Century_ (to the title of which, in 1901, were
added the words _And After_). Both periodicals became very influential
under him, and formed the type of the new sort of monthly review which
came to occupy the place formerly held by the quarterlies. In 1904 he
received the honour of knighthood. He died at Brighton on the 13th of
February 1908.
KNOWLES, JAMES SHERIDAN (1784-1862), Irish dramatist and actor, was born
in Cork, on the 12th of May 1784. His father was the lexicographer,
James Knowles (1759-1840), cousin-german of Richard Brinsley Sheridan.
The family removed to London in 1793, and at the age of fourteen Knowles
published a ballad entitled _The Welsh Harper_, which, set to music, was
very popular. The boy's talents secured him the friendship of Hazlitt,
who introduced him to Lamb and Coleridge. He served for some time in the
Wiltshire and afterwards in the Tower Hamlets militia, leaving the
service to become pupil of Dr Robert Willan (1757-1812). He obtained the
degree of M.D., and was appointed vaccinator to the Jennerian Society.
Although, however, Dr Willan generously offered him a share in his
practice, he resolved to forsake medicine for the stage, making his
first appearance probably at Bath, and playing Hamlet at the Crow
Theatre, Dublin. At Wexford he married, in October 1809, Maria
Charteris, an actress from the Edinburgh Theatre. In 1810 he wrote
_Leo_, in which Edmund Kean acted with great success; another play,
_Brian Boroihme_, written for the Belfast Theatre in the next year, also
drew crowded houses, but his earnings were so small that he was obliged
to become assistant to his father at the Belfast Academical Institution.
In 1817 he removed from Belfast to Glasgow, where, besides conducting a
flourishing school, he continued to write for the stage. His first
important success was _Caius Gracchus_, produced at Belfast in 1815; and
his _Virginius_, written for Edmund Kean, was first performed in 1820 at
Covent Garden. In _William Tell_ (1825) Macready found one of his
favourite parts. His best-known play, _The Hunchback_, was produced at
Covent Garden in 1832; _The Wife_ was brought out at the same theatre in
1833; and _The Love Chase_ in 1837. In his later years he forsook the
stage for the pulpit, and as a Baptist preacher attracted large
audiences at Exeter Hall and elsewhere. He published two polemical
works--the _Rock of Rome_ and the _Idol Demolished by its own
Priests_--in both of which he combated the special doctrines of the
Roman Catholic Church. Knowles was for some years in the receipt of an
annual pension of £200, bestowed by Sir Robert Peel. He died at Torquay
on the 30th of November 1862.
A full list of the works of Knowles and of the various notices of him
will be found in the _Life_ (1872), privately printed by his son,
Richard Brinsley Knowles (1820-1882), who was well known as a
journalist.
KNOW NOTHING (or AMERICAN) PARTY, in United States history, a political
party of great importance in the decade before 1860. Its principle was
political proscription of naturalized citizens and of Roman Catholics.
Distrust of alien immigrants, because of presumptive attachment to
European institutions, has always been more or less widely diffused, and
race antagonisms have been recurrently of political moment; while
anti-Catholic sentiment went back to colonial sectarianism. These were
the elements of the political "nativism"--i.e. hostility to foreign
influence in politics--of 1830-1860. In these years Irish immigration
became increasingly preponderant; and that of Catholics was even more
so. The geographical segregation and the clannishness of foreign voters
in the cities gave them a power that Whigs and Democrats alike (the
latter more successfully) strove to control, to the great aggravation of
naturalization and election frauds. "No one can deny that ignorant
foreign suffrage had grown to be an evil of immense proportions" (J. F.
Rhodes). In labour disputes, political feuds and social clannishness,
the alien elements--especially the Irish and German--displayed their
power, and at times gave offence by their hostile criticism of American
institutions.[1] In immigration centres like Boston, Philadelphia and
New York, the Catholic Church, very largely foreign in membership and
proclaiming a foreign allegiance of disputed extent, was really "the
symbol and strength of foreign influence" (Scisco); many regarded it as
a transplanted foreign institution, un-American in organization and
ideas.[2] Thus it became involved in politics. The decade 1830-1840 was
marked by anti-Catholic (anti-Irish) riots in various cities and by
party organization of nativists in many places in local elections. Thus
arose the American-Republican (later the Native-American) Party, whose
national career begun practically in 1845, and which in Louisiana in
1841 first received a state organization. New York City in 1844 and
Boston in 1845 were carried by the nativists, but their success was due
to Whig support, which was not continued,[3] and the national
organization was by 1847--in which year it endorsed the Whig nominee for
the presidency--practically dead. Though some Whig leaders had strong
nativist leanings, and though the party secured a few representatives in
Congress, it accomplished little at this time in national politics. In
the early 'fifties nativism was revivified by an unparalleled inflow of
aliens. Catholics, moreover, had combated the Native-Americans
defiantly. In 1852 both Whigs and Democrats were forced to defend their
presidential nominees against charges of anti-Catholic sentiment. In
1853-1854 there was a wide-spread "anti-popery" propaganda and riots
against Catholics in various cities. Meanwhile the Know Nothing Party
had sprung from nativist secret societies, whose relations remain
obscure.[4] Its organization was secret; and hence its name--for a
member, when interrogated, always answered that he knew nothing about
it. Selecting candidates secretly from among those nominated by the
other parties, and giving them no public endorsement, the Know Nothings,
as soon as they gained the balance of power, could shatter at will Whig
and Democratic calculations. Their power was evident by 1852--from which
time, accordingly, "Know Nothingism" is most properly dated. The charges
they brought against naturalization abuses were only too well founded;
and those against election frauds not less so--though, unfortunately,
the Know Nothings themselves followed scandalous election methods in
some cities. The proposed proscription of the foreign-born knew no
exceptions: many wished never to concede to them all the rights of
natives, nor to their children unless educated in the public schools. As
for Catholics, the real animus of Know Nothingism was against
_political_ Romanism; therefore, secondarily, against papal allegiance
and episcopal church administration (in place of administration by lay
trustees, as was earlier common practice in the United States); and,
primarily, against public aid to Catholic schools, and the alleged greed
(i.e. the power and success) of the Irish in politics. The times were
propitious for the success of an aggressive third party; for the Whigs
were broken by the death of Clay and Webster and the crushing defeat of
1852, and both the Whig and Democratic parties were disintegrating on
the slavery issue. But the Know Nothings lacked aggression. In entering
national politics the party abandoned its mysteries, without making
compensatory gains; when it was compelled to publish a platform of
principles, factions arose in its ranks; moreover, to draw recruits the
faster from Whigs and Democrats, it "straddled" the slavery question,
and this, although a temporary success, ultimately meant ruin. In 1854,
however, Know Nothing gains were remarkable.[5] Thereafter the
organization spread like wildfire in the South, in which section there
were almost no aliens, and the Whig dissolution was far advanced. The
Virginia election of May 1855 proved conclusively, however, that Know
Nothingism was no stronger against the Democrats than was the Whig party
it had absorbed; it was the same organization under a new name. In the
North it was even clearer that slavery must be faced. Know Nothing
evasion probably helped the South,[6] but neither Republicans nor
Democrats would endure the evasion; Douglas and Seward, and later
(1855-1856) their parties, denounced it. In the North-West the Know
Nothings were swept into the anti-slavery movement in 1854 without
retaining their organization. In the state campaigns of 1855 professions
were measured to the latitude. The national platform of 1856 (adopted by
a secret grand council), besides including anti-alien and anti-Catholic
planks, offered sops to the North, the South and the "doughfaces" on the
slavery issue. Millard Fillmore was nominated for the presidency. The
anti-slavery delegates of eight Northern states bolted the convention,
and eight months later the Republican wave swept the Know Nothings out
of the North.[7] The national field being thus lost, the state councils
became supreme, and local opportunism fostered variation and weakness.
By 1859 the party was confined almost entirely to the border states. The
Constitutional Union--the "Do Nothing"--Party of 1860 was mainly
composed of Know Nothing remnants.[8] The year 1860 practically marked,
also, the disappearance of the party as a local power.[9]
Except in city politics nativism had no vitality; in state and national
politics it really had no excuse. Race antipathies gave it local
cohesive power in the North; various causes, already mentioned, advanced
it in the South; and as a device to win offices it was of wide-spread
attraction. Its only real contribution to government was the proof that
nativism is not Americanism. Public opinion has never accepted its
estimate of the alien nor of Catholic citizens. Some of its anti-Church
principles, however--as the non-support of denominational schools--have
been generally accepted; others--as the refusal to exclude the
(Protestant) Bible from public schools--have been generally rejected;
others--as the taxation of all Church property--remain disputed.
See L. D. Scisco, _Political Nativism in New York State_ (doctoral
thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1901); L. F. Schmeckebier,
_Know Nothing Party in Maryland_ (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
1899); G. H. Haynes, "A Know Nothing Legislature" (Mass., 1855), in
_American Historical Assoc. Report_, pt. 1 (1896); J. B. McMaster,
_With the Fathers_, including "The Riotous Career of the Know
Nothings" (New York, 1896); H. F. Desmond, _The Know Nothing Party_
(Washington, 1905).