Nevertheless, it was not until 1882 that the anti-Jewish movement was

seriously heard of in France. Paul Bontoux (b. 1820), who had formerly

been in the employ of the Rothschilds, but had been obliged to leave

the firm in consequence of his disastrous speculations, had joined the

Legitimist party, and had started the Union Generale with funds obtained

from his new allies. Bontoux promised to break up the alleged financial

monopoly of the Jews and Protestants and to found a new plutocracy in

its stead, which should be mainly Roman Catholic and aristocratic. The

bait was eagerly swallowed. For five years the Union Generale, with the

blessing of the pope, pursued an apparently prosperous career. Immense

schemes were undertaken, and the 123-fr. shares rose gradually to 3200

francs. The whole structure, however, rested on a basis of audacious

speculation, and in January 1882 the Union Generale failed, with

liabilities amounting to 312,000,000 francs. The cry was at once raised

that the collapse was due to the manoeuvres of the Jews, and a strong

anti-Semitic feeling manifested itself in clerical and aristocratic

circles. In 1886 violent expression was given to this feeling in a book

since become famous, _La France juive_, by Edouard Drumont (b. 1844).

The author illustrated the theories of German anti-Semitism with a

_chronique scandaleuse_ full of piquant personalities, in which the

corruption of French national life under Jewish influences was painted

in alarming colours. The book was read with avidity by the public, who

welcomed its explanations of the obviously growing debauchery. The

Wilson scandals and the suspension of the Panama Company in the

following year, while not bearing out Drumont's anti-Semitism, fully

justified his view of the prevailing corruption. Out of this condition

of things rose the Boulangist movement, which rallied all the

disaffected elements in the country, including Drumont's following of

anti-Semites. It was not, however, until the flight of General Boulanger

and the ruin of his party that anti-Semitism came forward as a political

movement.

The chief author of the rout of Boulangism was a Jewish politician and

journalist, Joseph Reinach (b. 1856), formerly private secretary to

Gambetta, and one of the ablest men in France. He was a Frenchman by

birth and education, but his father and uncles were Germans, who had

founded an important banking establishment in Paris. Hence he was held

to personify the alien Jewish domination in France, and the

ex-Boulangists turned against him and his co-religionists with fury. The

Boulangist agitation had for a second time involved the Legitimists in

heavy pecuniary losses, and under the leadership of the marquis de Mores

they now threw all their influence on the side of Drumont. An

anti-Semitic league was established, and with Royalist assistance

branches were organized all over the country. The Franco-Russian

alliance in 1891, when the persecutions of the Jews by Pobedonostsev

were attracting the attention of Europe, served to invest Drumont's

agitation with a fashionable and patriotic character. It was a sign of

the spiritual approximation of the two peoples. In 1892 Drumont founded

a daily anti-Semitic newspaper, _La Libre Parole_. With the organization

of this journal a regular campaign for the discovery of scandals was

instituted. At the same time a body of aristocratic swashbucklers, with

the marquis de Mores and the comte de Lamase at their head, set

themselves to terrorize the Jews and provoke them to duels. At a meeting

held at Neuilly in 1891, Jules Guerin, one of the marquis de Mores's

lieutenants, had demanded rhetorically _un cadavre de Juif_. He had not

long to wait. Anti-Semitism was most powerful in the army, which was the

only branch of the public service in which the reactionary classes were

fully represented. The republican law compelling the seminarists to

serve their term in the army had strengthened its Clerical and Royalist

elements, and the result was a movement against the Jewish officers, of

whom 500 held commissions. A series of articles in the _Libre Parole_

attacking these officers led to a number of ferocious duels, and these

culminated in 1892 in the death of an amiable and popular Jewish

officer, Captain Armand Mayer, of the Engineers, who fell, pierced

through the lungs by the marquis de Mores. This tragedy, rendered all

the more painful by the discovery that Captain Mayer had chivalrously

fought to shield a friend, aroused a great deal of popular indignation

against the anti-Semites, and for a moment it was believed that the

agitation had been killed with its victim.

Towards the end of 1892, the discovery of the widespread corruption

practised by the Panama Company gave a fresh impulse to anti-Semitism.

The revelations were in a large measure due to the industry of the

_Libre Parole_; and they were all the more welcome to the readers of

that journal since it was discovered that three Jews were implicated in

the scandals, one of whom, baron de Reinach, was uncle and father-in-law

to the hated destroyer of Boulangism. The escape of the other two, Dr

Cornelius Herz and M. Arton, and the difficulties experienced in

obtaining their extradition, deepened the popular conviction that the

authorities were implicated in the scandals, and kept the public eye for

a long time absorbed by the otherwise restricted Jewish aspects of the

scandals. In 1894 the military side of the agitation was revived by the

arrest of a prominent Jewish staff officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, on a

charge of treason. From the beginning the hand of the anti-Semite was

flagrant in the new sensation. The first hint of the arrest appeared in

the _Libre Parole_; and before the facts had been officially

communicated to the public that journal was busy with a campaign against

the war minister, based on the apprehension that, in conspiracy with the

_Juiverie_ and his republican colleagues, he might exert himself to

shield the traitor. Anti-Semitic feeling was now thoroughly aroused.

Panama had prepared the people to believe anything; and when it was

announced that a court-martial, sitting in secret, had convicted

Dreyfus, there was a howl of execration against the Jews from one end of

the country to the other, although the alleged crime of the convict and

the evidence by which it was supported were quite unknown. Dreyfus was

degraded and transported for life amid unparalleled scenes of public

excitement.

The Dreyfus Case registers the climax not only of French, but of

European anti-Semitism. It was the most ambitious and most unscrupulous

attempt yet made to prove the nationalist hypothesis of the

anti-Semites, and in its failure it afforded the most striking

illustration of the dangers of the whole movement by bringing France to

the verge of revolution. For a few months after the Dreyfus

court-martial there was a comparative lull; but the highly strung

condition of popular passion was illustrated by a violent debate on "The

Jewish Peril" in the Chamber of Deputies (25th April 1895), and by two

outrages with explosives at the Rothschild bank in Paris. Meanwhile the

family of Dreyfus, absolutely convinced of his innocence, were casting

about for the means of clearing his character and securing his

liberation. They were wealthy, and their activity unsettled the public

mind and aroused the apprehensions of the conspirators. Had the latter

known how to preserve silence, the mystery would perhaps have been yet

unsolved; but in their anxiety to allay all suspicions they made one

false step, which proved the beginning of their ruin. Through their

friends in the press they secured the publication of a facsimile of a

document known as the _Bordereau_--a list of documents supposed to be in

Dreyfus's handwriting and addressed apparently to the military attache

of a foreign power, which was alleged to constitute the chief evidence

against the convict. It was hoped by this publication to put an end to

the doubts of the so-called Dreyfusards. The result, however, was only

to give them a clue on which they worked with remarkable ingenuity. To

prove that the _Bordereau_ was not in Dreyfus's handwriting was not

difficult. Indeed, its authorship was recognized almost on the day of

publication; but the Dreyfusards held their hands in order to make

assurance doubly sure by further evidence. Meanwhile one of the officers

of the general staff, Colonel Picquart, had convinced himself by an

examination of the _dossier_ of the trial that a gross miscarriage of

justice had taken place. On mentioning his doubts to his superiors, who

were animated partly by anti-Semitic feeling and partly by reluctance to

confess to a mistake, he was ordered to the Tunisian hinterland on a

dangerous expedition. Before leaving Paris, however, he took the

precaution to confide his discovery to his legal adviser. Harassed by

their anxieties, the conspirators made further communications to the

newspapers; and the government, questioned and badgered in parliament,

added to the revelations. The new disclosures, so far from stopping the

Dreyfusards, proved to them, among other things, that the conviction had

been partially based on documents which had not been communicated to the

counsel for the defence, and hence that the judges had been tampered

with by the ministry of war behind the prisoner's back. So far, too, as

these documents related to correspondence with foreign military

attaches, it was soon ascertained that they were forgeries. In this way

a terrible indictment was gradually drawn up against the ministry of

war. The first step was taken towards the end of 1897 by a brother of

Captain Dreyfus, who, in a letter to the minister of war, denounced

Major Esterhazy as the real author of the _Bordereau_. The authorities,

supported by parliament, declined to reopen the Dreyfus Case, but they

ordered a court-martial on Esterhazy, which was held with closed doors

and resulted in his acquittal. It now became clear that nothing short of

an appeal to public opinion and a full exposure of all the iniquities

that had been perpetrated would secure justice at the hands of the

military chiefs. On behalf of Dreyfus, Emile Zola, the eminent novelist,

formulated the case against the general staff of the army in an open

letter to the president of the republic, which by its dramatic

accusations startled the whole world. The letter was denounced as wild

and fantastic even by those who were in favour of revision. Zola was

prosecuted for libel and convicted, and had to fly the country; but the

agitation he had started was taken in hand by others, notably M.

Clemenceau, M. Reinach and M. Yves Guyot. In August 1898 their efforts

found their first reward. A re-examination of the documents in the case

by M. Cavaignac, then minister of war, showed that one was undoubtedly

forged. Colonel Henry, of the intelligence department of the war office,

then confessed that he had fabricated the document, and, on being sent

to Mont Valerien under arrest, cut his throat.

In spite of this damaging discovery the war office still persisted in

believing Dreyfus guilty, and opposed a fresh inquiry. It was supported

by three successive ministers of war, and apparently an overwhelming

body of public opinion. By this time the question of the guilt or

innocence of Dreyfus had become an altogether subsidiary issue. As in

Germany and Austria, the anti-Semitic crusade had passed into the hands

of the political parties. On the one hand the Radicals and Socialists,

recognizing the anti-republican aims of the agitators and alarmed by the

clerical predominance in the army, had thrown in their lot with the

Dreyfusards; on the other the reactionaries, anxious to secure the

support of the army, took the opposite view, denounced their opponents

as _sans patrie_, and declared that they were conspiring to weaken and

degrade the army in the face of the national enemy. The controversy was,

consequently, no longer for or against Dreyfus, but for or against the

army, and behind it was a life-or-death struggle between the republic

and its enemies. The situation became alarming. Rumours of military

plots filled the air. Powerful leagues for working up public feeling

were formed and organized; attempts to discredit the republic and

intimidate the government were made. The president was insulted; there

were tumults in the streets, and an attempt was made by M. Deroulede to

induce the military to march on the Elysee and upset the republic. In

this critical situation France, to her eternal honour, found men with

sufficient courage to do the right. The Socialists, by rallying to the

Radicals against the reactionaries, secured a majority for the defence

of the republic in parliament. Brisson's cabinet transmitted to the

court of cassation an application for the revision of the case against

Dreyfus; and that tribunal, after an elaborate inquiry, which fully

justified Zola's famous letter, quashed and annulled the proceedings of

the court-martial, and remitted the accused to another court-martial, to

be held at Rennes. Throughout these proceedings the military party

fought tooth and nail to impede the course of justice; and although the

innocence of Dreyfus had been completely established, it concentrated

all its efforts to secure a fresh condemnation of the prisoner at

Rennes. Popular passion was at fever heat, and it manifested itself in

an attack on M. Labori, one of the counsel for the defence, who was shot

and wounded on the eve of his cross-examination of the witnesses for the

prosecution. To the amazement and indignation of the whole world outside

France, the Rennes court-martial again found the prisoner guilty; but

all reliance on the conscientiousness of the verdict was removed by a

rider, which found "extenuating circumstances," and by a reduction of

the punishment to ten years' imprisonment, to which was added a

recommendation to mercy. The verdict was evidently an attempt at a

compromise, and the government resolved to advise the president of the

republic to pardon Dreyfus. This lame conclusion did not satisfy the

accused; but his innocence had been so clearly proved, and on political

grounds there were such urgent reasons for desiring a termination of the

affair, that it was accepted without protest by the majority of moderate

men.

The rehabilitation of Dreyfus, however, did not pass without another

effort on the part of the reactionaries to turn the popular passions

excited by the case to their own advantage. After the failure of

Deroulede's attempt to overturn the republic, the various Royalist and

Boulangist leagues, with the assistance of the anti-Semites, organized

another plot. This was discovered by the government, and the leaders

were arrested. Jules Guerin, secretary of the anti-Semitic league, shut

himself up in the league offices in the rue Chabrol, Paris, which had

been fortified and garrisoned by a number of his friends, armed with

rifles. For more than a month these anti-Semites held the authorities at

bay, and some 5000 troops were employed in the siege. The conspirators

were all tried by the senate, sitting as a high court, and Guerin was

sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The evidence showed that the

anti-Semitic organization had taken an active part in the

anti-republican plot (see the report of the Commission d'Instruction in

the _Petit Temps_, 1st November 1899).

The government now resolved to strike at the root of the mischief by

limiting the power of the religious orders, and with this view a drastic

Association bill was introduced into the chambers. This anti-clerical

move provoked the wildest passions of the reactionaries, but it found an

overwhelming support in the elections of 1902 and the bill became law.

The war thus definitely reopened soon led to a revival of the Dreyfus

controversy. The nationalists flooded the country with incendiary

defamations of "the government of national treason," and Dreyfus on his

part loudly demanded a fresh trial. It was clear that conciliation and

compromise were useless. Early in 1905 M. Jaures urged upon the chamber

that the demand of the Jewish officer should be granted if only to

tranquillize the country. The necessary _faits nouveaux_ were speedily

found by the minister of war, General Andre, and having been examined by

a special commission of revision were ordered to be transmitted to the

court of cassation for final adjudication. On the 12th of July 1906, the

court, all chambers united, gave its judgment. After a lengthy review of

the case it declared unanimously that the whole accusation against

Dreyfus had been disproved, and it quashed the judgment of the Rennes

court-martial _sans renvoi_. The explanation of the whole case is that

Esterhazy and Henry were the real culprits; that they had made a trade

of supplying the German government with military documents; and that

once the _Bordereau_ was discovered they availed themselves of the

anti-Jewish agitation to throw suspicion on Dreyfus.

Thus ended this famous case, to the relief of the whole country and with

the approval of the great majority of French citizens. Except a knot of

anti-Semitic monomaniacs all parties bowed loyally to the judgment of

the court of cassation. The government gave the fullest effect to the

judgment. Dreyfus and Picquart were restored to the active list of the

army with the ranks respectively of major and general of brigade.

Dreyfus was also created a knight of the Legion of Honour, and received

the decoration in public in the artillery pavilion of the military

school. Zola, to whose efforts the triumph of truth was chiefly due, had

not been spared to witness the final scene, but the chambers decided to

give his remains a last resting-place in the Pantheon. When three months

later M. Clemenceau formed his first cabinet he appointed General

Picquart minister of war. Nothing indeed was left undone to repair the

terrible series of wrongs which had grown out of the Dreyfus case.

Nevertheless its destructive work could not be wholly healed. For over

ten years it had been a nightmare to France, and it now modified the

whole course of French history. In the ruin of the French Church, which

owed its disestablishment very largely to the Dreyfus conspiracy, may be

read the most eloquent warning against the demoralizing madness of

anti-Semitism.

In sympathy with the agitation in France there has been a similar

movement in Algeria, where the European population have long resented

the admission of the native Jews to the rights of French citizenship.

The agitation has been marked by much violence, and most of the

anti-Semitic deputies in the French parliament, including M. Drumont,

have found constituencies in Algeria. As the local anti-Semites are

largely Spaniards and Levantine riff-raff, the agitation has not the

peculiar nationalist bias which characterizes continental anti-Semitism.

Before the energy of the authorities it has lately shown signs of

subsiding.

Great Britain, &c.

While the main activity of anti-Semitism has manifested itself in

Germany, Russia, Rumania, Austria-Hungary and France, its vibratory

influences have been felt in other countries when conditions favourable

to its extension have presented themselves. In England more than one

attempt to acclimatize the doctrines of Marr and Treitschke has been

made. The circumstance that at the time of the rise of German

anti-Semitism a premier of Hebrew race, Lord Beaconsfield, was in power

first suggested the Jewish bogey to English political extremists. The

Eastern crisis of 1876-1878, which was regarded by the Liberal party as

primarily a struggle between Christianity, as represented by Russia, and

a degrading Semitism, as represented by Turkey, accentuated the

anti-Jewish feeling, owing to the anti-Russian attitude adopted by the

government. Violent expression to the ancient prejudices against the

Jews was given by Sir J.G. Tollemache Sinclair (_A Defence of Russia_,

1877). Mr T.P. O'Connor, in a life of Lord Beaconsfield (1878), pictured

him as the instrument of the Jewish people, "moulding the whole policy

of Christendom to Jewish aims." Professor Goldwin Smith, in several

articles in the _Nineteenth Century_ (1878, 1881 and 1882), sought to

synthetize the growing anti-Jewish feeling by adopting the nationalist

theories of the German anti-Semites. This movement did not fail to find

an equivocal response in the speeches of some of the leading Liberal

statesmen; but on the country generally it produced no effect. It was

revived when the persecutions in Russia threatened England with a great

influx of Polish Jews, whose mode of life was calculated to lower the

standard of living in the industries in which they were employed, and it

has left its trace in the anti-alien legislation of 1905. In 1883

Stocker visited London, but received a very unflattering reception.

Abortive attempts to acclimatize anti-Semitism have also been made in

Switzerland, Belgium, Greece and the United States.

Anti-Semitism made a great deal of history during the thirty years up to

1908, but has left no permanent mark of a constructive kind on the

social and political evolution of Europe. It is the fruit of a great

ethnographic and political error, and it has spent itself in political

intrigues of transparent dishonesty. Its racial doctrine is at best a

crude hypothesis: its nationalist theory has only served to throw into

striking relief the essentially economic bases of modern society, while

its political activity has revealed the vulgarity and ignorance which

constitute its main sources of strength. So far from injuring the Jews,

it has really given Jewish racial separatism a new lease of life. Its

extravagant accusations, as in the Tisza Eszlar and Dreyfus cases, have

resulted in the vindication of the Jewish character. Its agitation

generally, coinciding with the revival of interest in Jewish history,

has helped to transfer Jewish solidarity from a religious to a racial

basis. The bond of a common race, vitalized by a new pride in Hebrew

history and spurred on to resistance by the insults of the anti-Semites,

has given a new spirit and a new source of strength to Judaism at a

moment when the approximation of ethical systems and the revolt against

dogma were sapping its essentially religious foundations. In the whole

history of Judaism, perhaps, there have been no more numerous or

remarkable instances of reversions to the faith than in the period in

question. The reply of the Jews to anti-Semitism has taken two

interesting practical forms. In the first place there is the so-called

Zionist movement, which is a kind of Jewish nationalism and is vitiated

by the same errors that distinguish its anti-Semitic analogue (see

ZIONISM). In the second place, there is a movement represented by the

Maccabaeans' Society in London, which seeks to unite the Jewish people

in an effort to raise the Jewish character and to promote a higher

consciousness of the dignity of the race. It lays no stress on

orthodoxy, but welcomes all who strive to render Jewish conduct an

adequate reply to the theories of the anti-Semites. Both these movements

are elements of fresh vitality to Judaism, and they are probably

destined to produce important fruit in future years. A splendid spirit

of generosity has also been displayed by the Jewish community in

assisting and relieving the victims of the Jew-haters. Besides countless

funds raised by public subscription, Baron de Hirsch founded a colossal

scheme for transplanting persecuted Jews to new countries under new

conditions of life, and endowed it with no less a sum than L9,000,000

(see HIRSCH, MAURICE DE).

Though anti-Semitism has been unmasked and discredited, it is to be

feared that its history is not yet at an end. While there remain in

Russia and Rumania over six millions of Jews who are being

systematically degraded, and who periodically overflow the western

frontier, there must continue to be a Jewish question in Europe; and

while there are weak governments, and ignorant and superstitious

elements in the enfranchized classes of the countries affected, that

question will seek to play a part in politics.

LITERATURE.--No impartial history of modern anti-Semitism has yet been

written. The most comprehensive works on the subject, _Israel among

the Nations_, by A. Leroy-Beaulieu (1895), and _L'Antisemitisme, son

histoire et ses causes_, by Bernard Lazare (1894), are collections of

studies rather than histories. M. Lazare's work will be found most

useful by the student on account of its detached standpoint and its

valuable bibliographical notes. A good list of works relating to

Jewish ethnography will be found at the end of M. Isidor Loeb's

valuable article, "Juifs," in the _Dictionnaire universel de

geographie_ (1884). To these should be added, Adolf Jellinek, _Der

Judische Stamm_ (1869); Chwolson, _Die semitischen Volker_ (1872);

Nossig, _Materialien zur Statistik_ (1887); Jacobs, _Jewish

Statistics_ (1891); and Andree, _Zur Volkskunde der Juden_ (1881). A

bibliography of the Jewish question from 1875 to 1884 has been

published by Mr Joseph Jacobs (1885). Useful additions and

rectifications will be found in the _Jewish World_, 11th September

1885. During the period since 1885 the anti-Semitic movement has

produced an immense pamphlet literature. Some of these productions

have already been referred to; others will be found in current

bibliographies under the names of the personages mentioned, such as

Stocker, Ahlwardt, &c. On the Russian persecutions, besides the works

quoted by Jacobs, see the pamphlet issued by the Russo-Jewish

Committee in 1890, and the annual reports of the Russo-Jewish Mansion

House Fund; _Les Juifs de Russie_ (Paris, 1891); _Report of the

Commissioners of Immigration upon the Causes which incite Immigration

to the United States_ (Washington, 1892); _The New Exodus_, by Harold

Frederic (1892); _Les Juifs russes_, by Leo Errera (Brussels, 1893).

The most valuable collection of facts relating to the persecutions of

1881-1882 are to be found in the _Feuilles Jaunes_ (52 nos.), compiled

and circulated for the information of the European press by the

Alliance Israelite of Paris. Complete collections are very scarce. For

the struggle during the past decade the _Russische Correspondenz_ of

Berlin should be consulted, together with its French and English

editions. See also the publications of the _Bund_ (Geneva; Imprimerie

Israelite); Semenoff, _The Russian Government and the Massacres_, and

_Quarterly Review_, October 1906. On the Rumanian question, see

Bluntschli, _Roumania and the Legal Status of the Jews_ (London,

1879); _Wir Juden_ (Zurich, 1883); Schloss, _The Persecution of the

Jews in Roumania_ (London, 1885); Schloss, _Notes of Information_

(1886); Sincerus, _Juifs en Roumanie_ (London, 1901); Plotke, _Die

rumanischen Juden unter dem Fursten u. Konig Karl_ (1901); Dehn,

_Diplomatic u. Hochfinanz in der rumanischen Judenfrage_ (1901);

Conybeare, "Roumania as a Persecuting Power," _Nat. Rev_., February

1901. On Hungary and the Tisza Eszlar Case, see (besides the

references in Jacobs) Nathan, _Der Prozess van Tisza Eszlar_ (Berlin,

1892). On this case and the Blood Accusation generally, see Wright,

"The Jews and the Malicious Charge of Human Sacrifice," _Nineteenth

Century_, 1883. The origins of the Austrian agitation are dealt with

by Nitti, _Catholic Socialism_ (1895). This work, though inclining to

anti-Semitism, should be consulted for the Christian Socialist

elements in the whole continental agitation. The most valuable source

of information on the Austrian movement is the _Osterreichische

Wochenschrift_, edited by Dr Bloch. See also pamphlets and speeches by

the anti-Semitic leaders, Liechtenstein, Lueger, Schoenerer, &c. The

case of the French anti-Semites is stated by E. Drumont in his _France

juive_. and other works; the other side by Isidor Loeb, Bernard

Lazare, Leonce Reynaud, &c. Of the Dreyfus Case there is an enormous

literature: see especially the reports of the Zola and Picquart

trials, the revision case before the Court of Cassation, the

proceedings of the Rennes court-martial, and the final judgment of the

Court of Cassation printed in full in the _Figaro_, July 15, 1906;

also Reinach, _Histoire de l'affaire Dreyfus_ (Paris, 1908, 6 vols.),

and the valuable series of volumes by Captain Paul Marin, MM.

Clemenceau, Lazare, Yves Guyot, Paschal Grousset, Urbain Gohier, de

Haime, de Pressense, and the remarkable letters of Dreyfus (_Lettres

d'un innocent_). An English history of the case was published by F.C.

Conybeare (1898), whose articles and those of Sir Godfrey Lushington

and L.J. Maxse in the _National Review_, 1897-1900, will be found

invaluable by the student. On the Algerian question, see M. Wahl in

the _Revue des etudes juives_; L. Forest, _Naturalisation des

Israelites algeriens_; and E. Audinet in the _Revue generale de droit

international publique_, 1897, No. 4. On the history of the

anti-Semitic movement generally, see the annual reports of the

Alliance Israelite of Paris and the Anglo-Jewish Association of

London, also the annual summaries published at the end of the Jewish

year by the _Jewish Chronicle_ of London. The connexion of the

movement with general party politics must be followed in the

newspapers. The present writer has worked with a collection of

newspaper cuttings numbering several thousands and ranging over thirty

years. (L. W.)

ANTISEPTICS (Gr. [Greek: anti], against, and [Greek: saeptikos],

putrefactive), the name given to substances which are used for the

prevention of bacterial development in animal or vegetable matter. Some

are true germicides, capable of destroying the bacteria, whilst others

merely prevent or inhibit their growth. The antiseptic method of

treating wounds (see SURGERY) was introduced by Lord Lister, and was an

outcome of Pasteur's germ theory of putrefaction. For the growth of

bacteria there must be a certain food supply, moisture, in most cases

oxygen, and a certain minimum temperature (see BACTERIOLOGY). These

conditions have been specially studied and applied in connexion with the

preserving of food (see FOOD PRESERVATION) and in the ancient practice

of embalming the dead, which is the earliest illustration of the

systematic use of antiseptics (see EMBALMING). In early inquiries a

great point was made of the prevention of putrefaction, and work was

done in the way of finding how much of an agent must be added to a given

solution, in order that the bacteria accidentally present might not

develop. But for various reasons this was an inexact method, and to-day

an antiseptic is judged by its effects on pure cultures of definite

pathogenic microbes, and on their vegetative and spore forms. Their

standardization has been effected in many instances, and a water

solution of carbolic acid of a certain fixed strength is now taken as

the standard with which other antiseptics are compared. The more

important of those in use to-day are carbolic acid, the perchloride and

biniodide of mercury, iodoform, formalin, salicylic acid, &c. Carbolic

acid is germicidal in strong solution, inhibitory in weaker ones. The

so-called "pure" acid is applied to infected living tissues, especially

to tuberculous sinuses or wounds, after scraping them, in order to

destroy any part of the tuberculous material still remaining. A solution

of 1 in 20 is used to sterilize instruments before an operation, and

towels or lint to be used for the patient. Care must always be taken to

avoid absorption (see CARBOLIC ACID). The perchloride of mercury is

another very powerful antiseptic used in solutions of strength 1 in

2000, 1 in 1000 and 1 in 500. This or the biniodide of mercury is the

last antiseptic applied to the surgeon's and assistants' hands before an

operation begins. They are not, however, to be used in the disinfection

of instruments, nor where any large abraded surface would favour

absorption. Boracic acid receives no mention here; though it is

popularly known as an antiseptic, it is in reality only a soothing

fluid, and bacteria will flourish comfortably in contact with it. Of the

dry antiseptics iodoform is constantly used in septic or tuberculous

wounds, and it appears to have an inhibitory action on _Bacillus

tuberculosis_. Its power depends on the fact that it is slowly

decomposed by the tissues, and free iodine given off. Among the more

recently introduced antiseptics, chinosol, a yellow substance freely

soluble in water, and lysol, another coal-tar derivative, are much used.

But every antiseptic, however good, is more or less toxic and irritating

to a wounded surface. Hence it is that the "antiseptic" method has been

replaced in the surgery of to-day by the "aseptic" method (see SURGERY),

which relies on keeping free from the invasion of bacteria rather than

destroying them when present.

ANTISTHENES (c. 444-365 B.C.), the founder of the Cynic school of

philosophy, was born at Athens of a Thracian mother, a fact which may

account for the extreme boldness of his attack on conventional thought.

In his youth he studied rhetoric under Gorgias, perhaps also under

Hippias and Prodicus. Gomperz suggests that he was originally in good

circumstances, but was reduced to poverty. However this may be, he came

under the influence of Socrates, and became a devoted pupil. So eager

was he to hear the words of Socrates that he used to walk daily from

Peiraeus to Athens, and persuaded his friends to accompany him. Filled

with enthusiasm for the Socratic idea of virtue, he founded a school of

his own in the Cynosarges, the hall of the bastards ([Greek: nothoi]).

Thither he attracted the poorer classes by the simplicity of his life

and teaching. He wore a cloak and carried a staff and a wallet, and this

costume became the uniform of his followers. Diogenes Laertius says that

his works filled ten volumes, but of these fragments only remain. His

favourite style seems to have been the dialogue, wherein we see the

effect of his early rhetorical training. Aristotle speaks of him as

uneducated and simple-minded, and Plato describes him as struggling in

vain with the difficulties of dialectic. His work represents one great

aspect of Socratic philosophy, and should be compared with the Cyrenaic

and Megarian doctrines.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Charles Chappuis, _Antisthene_ (Paris, 1854); A.

Muller, _De Antisthenis cynici vita et scriptis_ (Dresden, 1860); T.

Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_ (Eng. trans., 1905), vol. ii. pp. 142 ff.,

150 ff. For his philosophy see CYNICS, and for his pupils, Diogenes

and Crates, see articles under these headings.

ANTISTROPHE, the portion of an ode which is sung by the chorus in its

returning movement from west to east, in response to the strophe, which

was sung from east to west. It is of the nature of a reply, and balances

the effect of the strophe. Thus, in Gray's ode called "The Progress of

Poesy," the strophe, which dwelt in triumphant accents on the beauty,

power and ecstasy of verse, is answered by the antistrophe, in a

depressed and melancholy key--

"Man's feeble race what ills await,

Labour, and Penury, the racks of Pain,

Disease and Sorrow's weeping Train,

And Death, sad refuge from the storms of Fate," &c.

When the sections of the chorus have ended their responses, they unite

and close in the epode, thus exemplifying the triple form in which the

ancient sacred hymns of Greece were composed, from the days of

Stesichorus onwards. As Milton says, "strophe, antistrophe and epode

were a kind of stanza framed only for the music then used with the

chorus that sang."

ANTITHESIS (the Greek for "setting opposite"), in rhetoric, the bringing

out of a contrast in the meaning by an obvious contrast in the

expression, as in the following:--"When there is need of silence, you

speak, and when there is need of speech, you are dumb; when present, you

wish to be absent, and when absent, you desire to be present; in peace

you are for war, and in war you long for peace; in council you descant

on bravery, and in the battle you tremble." Antithesis is sometimes

double or alternate, as in the appeal of Augustus:--"Listen, young men,

to an old man to whom old men were glad to listen when he was young."

The force of the antithesis is increased if the words on which the beat

of the contrast falls are alliterative, or otherwise similar in sound,

as--"The fairest but the falsest of her sex." There is nothing that

gives to expression greater point and vivacity than a judicious

employment of this figure; but, on the other hand, there is nothing more

tedious and trivial than a pseudo-antithetical style. Among English

writers who have made the most abundant use of antithesis are Pope,

Young, Johnson, and Gibbon; and especially Lyly in his _Euphues_. It is,

however, a much more common feature in French than in English; while in

German, with some striking exceptions, it is conspicuous by its absence.

ANTITYPE (Gr. [Greek: antitupos]), the correlative of "type," to which

it corresponds as the stamp to the die, or vice versa. In the sense of

copy or likeness the word occurs in the Greek New Testament (Heb. ix.

24; 1 Peter iii. 21), English "figure." By theological writers antitype

is employed to denote the reality of which a type is the prophetic

symbol. Thus, Christ is the antitype of many of the types of the Jewish

ritual. By the fathers of the Greek church (e.g. Gregory Nazianzen)

antitype is employed as a designation of the bread and wine in the

sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

ANTIUM (mod. _Anzio_), an ancient Volscian city on the coast of Latium,

about 33 m. S. of Rome. The legends as to its foundation, and the

accounts of its early relations with Rome, are untrustworthy; but Livy's

account of wars between Antium and Rome, early in the 4th century B.C.,

may perhaps be accepted. Antium is named with Ardea, Laurentum and

Circeii, as under Roman protection, in the treaty with Carthage in 348

B.C. In 341 it lost its independence after a rising with the rest of

Latium against Rome, and the beaks (_rostra_) of the six captured

Antiatine ships decorated and gave their name to the orators' tribunal

in the Roman Forum. At the end of the Republican period it became a

resort of wealthy Romans, and the Julian and Claudian emperors

frequently visited it; both Caligula and Nero were born there. The

latter founded a colony of veterans and built a new harbour, the

projecting moles of which are still extant. In the middle ages it was

deserted in favour of Nettuno: at the end of the 17th century Innocent

XII. and Clement XI. restored the harbour, not on the old site but to

the east of it, with the opening to the east, a mistake which leads to

its being frequently silted up; it has a depth of about 15 ft. Remains

of Roman villas are conspicuous all along the shore, both to the east

and to the north-west of the town. That of Nero cannot be certainly

identified, but is generally placed at the so-called Arco Muto, where

remains of a theatre (discovered in 1712 and covered up again) also

exist. Many works of art have been found. Of the famous temple of

Fortune (Horace, _Od_. i. 35) no remains are known. The sea is

encroaching slightly at Anzio, but some miles farther north-west the old

Roman coast-line now lies slightly inland (see TIBER). The Volscian city

stood on higher ground and somewhat away from the shore, though it

extended down to it. It was defended by a deep ditch, which can still be

traced, and by walls, a portion of which, on the eastern side,

constructed of rectangular blocks of tufa, was brought to light in 1897.

The modern place is a summer resort and has several villas, among them

the Villa Borghese.

See A. Nibby, _Dintorni di Roma_, i. 181; _Notizie degli scavi,

passim_. (T. As.)

ANTIVARI (Montenegrin _Bar_, so called by the Venetians from its

position opposite Bari in Italy), a seaport of Montenegro which until

1878 belonged to Turkey. Pop. (1900) about 2500. The old town is built

inland, on a strip of country running between the Adriatic Sea and the

Sutorman range of mountains, overshadowed by the peak of Rumiya (5148

ft.). At a few hundred yards' distance it is invisible, hidden among

dense olive groves. Within, there is a ruinous walled village, and the

shell of an old Venetian fortress, surrounded by mosques and bazaars;

for Antivari is rather Turkish than Montenegrin. The fine bay of

Antivari, with Prstan, its port, is distant about one hour's drive

through barren and forbidding country, shut in by mountains. At the

northern horn of the bay stands Spizza, an Austrian military station.

Antivari contains the residence of its Roman Catholic archbishop, and,

in the centre of the shore, Topolitsa, the square undecorated palace of

the crown prince. Antivari is the name applied both to Prstan and the

old town. The Austrian Lloyd steamers call at times, and the "Puglia"

S.S. Company runs a regular service of steamers to and from Bari. As an

outlet for Montenegrin commerce, however, Antivari cannot compete with

the Austrian Cattaro, the harbour being somewhat difficult of access in

stormy weather. Fishing and olive-oil refining are the main industries.

ANT-LION, the name given to neuropterous insects of the family

_Myrmeleonidae_, with relatively short and apically clubbed antennae and

four large densely reticulated wings in which the apical veins enclose

regular oblong spaces. The perfect insects are for the most part

nocturnal and are believed to be carnivorous. The best-known species,

_Myrmeleon formicarius_, which may be found adult in the late summer,

occurs in many countries on the European continent, though like the rest

of this group it is not indigenous in England. Strictly speaking,

however, the term ant-lion applies to the larval form, which has been

known scientifically for over two hundred years, on account of its

peculiar and forbidding appearance and its skilful and unique manner of

entrapping prey by means of a pitfall. The abdomen is oval, sandy-grey

in hue and beset with warts and bristles; the prothorax forms a mobile

neck for the large square head, which carries a pair of long and

powerful toothed mandibles. It is in dry and sandy soil that the

ant-lion lays its trap. Having marked out the chosen site by a circular

groove, it starts to crawl backwards, using its abdomen as a plough to

shovel up the soil. By the aid of one front leg it places consecutive

heaps of loosened particles upon its head, then with a smart jerk throws

each little pile clear of the scene of operations. Proceeding thus it

gradually works its way from the circumference towards the centre. When

the latter is reached and the pit completed, the larva settles down at

the bottom, buried in the soil with only the jaws projecting above the

surface. Since the sides of the pit consist of loose sand they afford an

insecure foothold to any small insect that inadvertently ventures over

the edge. Slipping to the bottom the prey is immediately seized by the

lurking ant-lion; or if it attempt to scramble again up the treacherous

walls of the pit, is speedily checked in its efforts and brought down by

showers of loose sand which are jerked at it from below by the larva. By

means of similar head-jerks the skins of insects sucked dry of their

contents are thrown out of the pit, which is then kept clear of refuse.

A full-grown larva digs a pit about 2 in. deep and 3 in. wide at the

edge. The pupa stage of the ant-lion is quiescent. The larva makes a

globular case of sand stuck together with fine silk spun, it is said,

from a slender spinneret at the posterior end of the body. In this it

remains until the completion of the transformation into the sexually

mature insect, which then emerges from the case, leaving the pupal

integument behind. In certain species of _Myrmeleonidae_, such as

_Dendroleon pantheormis_, the larva, although resembling that of

_Myrmeleon_ structurally, makes no pitfall, but seizes passing prey from

any nook or crevice in which it shelters.

The exact meaning of the name ant-lion (Fr. _fourmilion_) is uncertain.

It has been thought that it refers to the fact that ants form a large

percentage of the prey of the insect, the suffix "lion" merely

suggesting destroyer or eater. Perhaps, however, the name may only

signify a large terrestrial biting apterous insect, surpassing the ant

in size and predatory habits. (R. I. P.)

ANTOFAGASTA, a town and port of northern Chile and capital of the

Chilean province of the same name, situated about 768 m. N. of

Valparaiso in 23 deg. 38' 39" S. lat. and 70 deg. 24' 39" W. long. Pop.

(est. 1902) 16,084. Antofagasta is the seaport for a railway running to

Oruro, Bolivia, and is the only available outlet for the trade of the

south-western departments of that republic. The smelting works for the

neighbouring silver mines are located here, and a thriving trade with

the inland mining towns is carried on. The town was founded in 1870 as a

shipping port for the recently discovered silver mines of that vicinity,

and belonged to Bolivia until 1879, when it was occupied by a Chilean

military force.

The province of ANTOFAGASTA has an area of 46,611 sq. m. lying within

the desert of Atacama and between the provinces of Tarapaca and Atacama.

It is rich in saline and other mineral deposits, the important Caracoles

silver mines being about 90 m. north-east of the port of Antofagasta.

Like the other provinces of this region, Antofagasta produces for export

copper, silver, silver ores, lead, nitrate of soda, borax and salt.

Iron and manganese ores are also found. Besides Antofagasta the

principal towns are Taltal, Mejillones, Cobija (the old capital) and

Tocopilla. Up to 1879 the province belonged to Bolivia, and was known as

the department of Atacama, or the Litoral. It fell into the possession

of Chile in the war of 1879-82, and was definitely ceded to that

republic in 1885.

ANTOINE, ANDRE (1858- ), French actor-manager, was born at Limoges,

and in his early years was in business. But he was an enthusiastic

amateur actor, and in 1887 he founded in Paris the Theatre Libre, in

order to realize his ideas as to the proper development of dramatic art.

For an account of his work, which had enormous influence on the French

stage, see DRAMA: _France_. In 1894 he gave up the direction of this

theatre, and became connected with the Gymnase, and later (1896) with

the Odeon.

ANTONELLI, GIACOMO (1806-1876), Italian cardinal, was born at Sonnino on

the 2nd of April 1806. He was educated for the priesthood, but, after

taking minor orders, gave up the idea of becoming a priest, and chose an

administrative career. Created secular prelate, he was sent as apostolic

delegate to Viterbo, where he early manifested his reactionary

tendencies in an attempt to stamp out Liberalism. Recalled to Rome in

1841, he entered the office of the papal secretary of state, but four

years later was appointed pontifical treasurer-general. Created cardinal

(11th June 1847), he was chosen by Pius IX. to preside over the council

of state entrusted with the drafting of the constitution. On the 10th of

March 1848 Antonelli became premier of the first constitutional ministry

of Pius IX., a capacity in which he displayed consummate duplicity. Upon

the fall of his cabinet Antonelli created for himself the governorship

of the sacred palaces in order to retain constant access to and

influence over the pope. After the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi

(15th November 1848) he arranged the flight of Pius IX. to Gaeta, where

he was appointed secretary of state. Notwithstanding promises to the

powers, he restored absolute government upon returning to Rome (12th

April 1850) and violated the conditions of the surrender by wholesale

imprisonment of Liberals. In 1855 he narrowly escaped assassination. As

ally of the Bourbons of Naples, from whom he had received an annual

subsidy, he attempted, after 1860, to facilitate their restoration by

fomenting brigandage on the Neapolitan frontier. To the overtures of

Ricasoli in 1861, Pius IX., at Antonelli's suggestion, replied with the

famous "_Non possumus_," but subsequently (1867) accepted, too late,

Ricasoli's proposal concerning ecclesiastical property. After the

September Convention (1864) Antonelli organized the Legion of Antibes to

replace French troops in Rome, and in 1867 secured French aid against

Garibaldi's invasion of papal territory. Upon the reoccupation of Rome

by the French after Mentana, Antonelli again ruled supreme, but upon the

entry of the Italians in 1870 was obliged to restrict his activity to

the management of foreign relations. He wrote, with papal approval, the

letter requesting the Italians to occupy the Leonine city, and obtained

from the Italians payment of the Peter's pence (5,000,000 lire)

remaining in the papal exchequer, as well as 50,000 scudi--the first and

only instalment of the Italian allowance (subsequently fixed by the Law

of Guarantees, March 21, 1871) ever accepted by the Holy See. At

Antonelli's death the Vatican finances were found to be in disorder,

with a deficit of 45,000,000 lire. His personal fortune, accumulated

during office, was considerable, and was bequeathed almost entirely to

members of his family. To the Church he left little and to the pope only

a trifling souvenir. From 1850 until his death he interfered little in

affairs of dogma and church discipline, although he addressed to the

powers circulars enclosing the Syllabus (1864) and the acts of the

Vatican Council (1870). His activity was devoted almost exclusively to

the struggle between the papacy and the Italian _Risorgimento_, the

history of which is comprehensible only when the influence exercised by

his unscrupulous, grasping and sinister personality is fully taken into

account. He died on the 6th of November 1876.

ANTONELLO DA MESSINA (c. 1430-1479), Italian painter, was probably born

at Messina about the beginning of the 15th century, and laboured at his

art for some time in his native country. Happening to see at Naples a

painting in oil by Jan Van Eyck, belonging to Alphonso of Aragon, he was

struck by the peculiarity and value of the new method, and set out for

the Netherlands to acquire a knowledge of the process from Van Eyck's

disciples. He spent some time there in the prosecution of his art;

returned with his secret to Messina about 1465; probably visited Milan;

removed to Venice in 1472, where he painted for the Council of Ten; and

died there in the middle of February 1479 (see Venturi's article in

Thieme-Becker, _Kunstlerlexikon_, 1907). His style is remarkable for its

union--not always successful--of Italian simplicity with Flemish love of

detail. His subjects are frequently single figures, upon the complete

representation of which he bestows his utmost skill. There are

extant--besides a number more or less dubious--twenty authentic

productions, consisting of renderings of "Ecce Homo," Madonnas, saints,

and half-length portraits, many of them painted on wood. The finest of

all is said to be the nameless picture of a man in the Berlin museum.

The National Gallery, London, has three works by him, including the "St

Jerome in his Study." Antonello exercised an important influence on

Italian painting, not only by the introduction of the Flemish invention,

but also by the transmission of Flemish tendencies.

ANTONINI ITINERARIUM, a valuable register, still extant, of the stations

and distances along the various roads of the Roman empire, seemingly

based on official documents, which were probably those of the survey

organized by Julius Caesar, and carried out under Augustus. Nothing is

known with certainty as to the date or author. It is considered probable

that the date of the original edition was the beginning of the 3rd

century, while that which we possess is to be assigned to the time of

Diocletian. If the author or promoter of the work is one of the

emperors, it is most likely to be Antoninus Caracalla.

Editions by Wesseling, 1735, Parthey and Pindar, 1848. The portion

relating to Britain was published under the title _Iter Britanniarum_,

with commentary by T. Reynolds, 1799.

ANTONINUS, SAINT [ANTONIO PIEROZZI, also called DE FORCIGLIONI]

(1389-1459), archbishop of Florence, was born at that city on the 1st of

March 1389. He entered the Dominican order in his 16th year, and was

soon entrusted, in spite of his youth, with the government of various

houses of his order at Cortona, Rome, Naples and Florence, which he

laboured zealously to reform. He was consecrated archbishop of Florence

in 1446, and won the esteem and love of his people, especially by his

energy and resource in combating the effects of the plague and

earthquake in 1448 and 1453. He died on the 2nd of May 1459, and was

canonized by Pope Adrian VI. in 1523. His feast is annually celebrated

on the 13th of May. Antoninus had a great reputation for theological

learning, and sat as papal theologian at the council of Florence (1439).

Of his various works, the list of which is given in Quetif-Echard, _De

Scriptoribus Ord. Praedicat_., i. 818, the best-known are his _Summa

theologica_ (Venice, 1477; Verona, 1740) and the _Summa confessionalis_

(Mondovi, 1472), invaluable to confessors.

See Bolland, _Acta Sanctorum_, i., and U. Chevalier, _Rep. des. s.

hist._ (1905), pp. 285-286.

ANTONINUS LIBERALIS, Greek grammarian, probably flourished about A.D.

150. He wrote a collection of forty-one tales of mythical metamorphoses

([Greek: Metamorphoseon Synagogein]), chiefly valuable as a source of

mythological knowledge.

Westermann, _Mythographi Graeci_ (1843); Oder, _De Antonino Liberali_

(1886).

ANTONINUS PIUS [TITUS AURELIUS FULVUS BOIONIUS ARRIUS ANTONINUS], (A.D.

86-161), Roman emperor A.D. 138-161, the son of Aurelius Fulvus, a Roman

consul whose family had originally belonged to Nemausus (Nimes), was born

near Lanuvium on the 19th of September 86. After the death of his father,

he was brought up under the care of Arrius Antoninus, his maternal

grandfather, a man of integrity and culture, and on terms of friendship

with the younger Pliny. Having filled with more than usual success the

offices of quaestor and praetor, he obtained the consulship in 120; he

was next chosen one of the four consulars for Italy, and greatly

increased his reputation by his conduct as proconsul of Asia. He acquired

much influence with the emperor Hadrian, who adopted him as his son and

successor on the 25th of February 138, after the death of his first

adopted son Aelius Verus, on condition that he himself adopted Marcus

Annius Verus, his wife's brother's son, and Lucius, son of Aelius Verus,

afterwards the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aelius Verus

(colleague of Marcus Aurelius). A few months afterwards, on Hadrian's

death, he was enthusiastically welcomed to the throne by the Roman

people, who, for once, were not disappointed in their anticipation of a

happy reign. For Antoninus came to his new office with simple tastes,

kindly disposition, extensive experience, a well-trained intelligence and

the sincerest desire for the welfare of his subjects. Instead of

plundering to support his prodigality, he emptied his private treasury to

assist distressed provinces and cities, and everywhere exercised rigid

economy (hence the nickname [Greek: kuminopristaes], "cummin-splitter").

Instead of exaggerating into treason whatever was susceptible of

unfavourable interpretation, he turned the very conspiracies that were

formed against him into opportunities of signalizing his clemency.

Instead of stirring up persecution against the Christians, he extended to

them the strong hand of his protection throughout the empire. Rather than

give occasion to that oppression which he regarded as inseparable from an

emperor's progress through his dominions, he was content to spend all the

years of his reign in Rome, or its neighbourhood. Under his patronage the

science of jurisprudence was cultivated by men of high ability, and a

number of humane and equitable enactments were passed in his name. Of the

public transactions of this period we have but scant information, but, to

judge by what we possess, those twenty-two years were not remarkably

eventful. One of his first acts was to persuade the senate to grant

divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; this gained

him the title of Pius (dutiful in affection). He built temples, theatres,

and mausoleums, promoted the arts and sciences, and bestowed honours and

salaries upon the teachers of rhetoric and philosophy. His reign was

comparatively peaceful. Insurrections amongst the Moors, Jews, and

Brigantes in Britain were easily put down. The one military result which

is of interest to us now is the building in Britain of the wall of

Antoninus from the Forth to the Clyde. In his domestic relations

Antoninus was not so fortunate. His wife, Faustina, has almost become a

byword for her lack of womanly virtue; but she seems to have kept her

hold on his affections to the last. On her death he honoured her memory

by the foundation of a charity for orphan girls, who bore the name of

_Alimentariae Faustinianae_. He had by her two sons and two daughters;

but they all died before his elevation to the throne, except Annia

Faustina, who became the wife of Marcus Aurelius. Antoninus died of fever

at Lorium in Etruria, about 12 m. from Rome, on the 7th of March 161,

giving the keynote to his life in the last word that he uttered when the

tribune of the night-watch came to ask the password--_aequanimitas_.

The only account of his life handed down to us is that of Julius

Capitolinus, one of the _Scriptores Historiae Augustae_. See

Bossart-Mueller, _Zur Geschichte des Kaisers A._ (1868); Lacour-Gayet,

_A. le Pieux et son Temps_ (1888); Bryant, _The Reign of Antonine_

(Cambridge Historical Essays, 1895); P.B. Watson, _Marcus Aurelius

Antoninus_ (London, 1884), chap. ii.

ANTONIO, known as "THE PRIOR OF CRATO" (1531-1595), claimant of the

throne of Portugal, was the natural son of Louis (Luis), duke of Beja,

by Yolande (Violante) Gomez, a Jewess, who is said to have died a nun.

His father was a younger son of Emanuel, king of Portugal (1495-1521).

Antonio was educated at Coimbra, and was placed in the order of St John.

He was endowed with the wealthy priory of Crato. Little is known of his

life till 1578. In that year he accompanied King Sebastian (1557-1578)

in his invasion of Morocco, and was taken prisoner by the Moors at the

battle of Alcazar-Kebir, in which the king was slain. Antonio is said to

have secured his release on easy terms by a fiction. He was asked the

meaning of the cross of St John which he wore on his doublet, and

replied that it was the sign of a small benefice which he held from the

pope, and would lose if he were not back by the 1st of January. His

captor, believing him to be a poor man, allowed him to escape for a

small ransom. On his return to Portugal he found that his uncle, the

cardinal Henry, only surviving son of King John III. (1521-1557), had

been recognized as king. The cardinal was old, and was the last

legitimate male representative of the royal line (see PORTUGAL:

_History_). The succession was claimed by Philip II. of Spain. Antonio,

relying on the popular hostility to a Spanish ruler, presented himself

as a candidate. He had endeavoured to prove that his father and mother

had been married after his birth. There was, however, no evidence of the

marriage. Antonio's claim, which was inferior not only to that of Philip

II., but to that of the duchess of Braganza, was not supported by the

nobles or gentry. His partisans were drawn exclusively from the inferior

clergy, the peasants and workmen. The prior endeavoured to resist the

army which Philip II. marched into Portugal to enforce his pretensions,

but was easily routed by the duke of Alva, the Spanish commander, at

Alcantara, on the 25th of August 1580. At the close of the year, or in

the first days of 1581, he fled to France carrying with him the crown

jewels, which included many valuable diamonds. He was well received by

Catherine de' Medici, who had a claim of her own on the crown of

Portugal, and looked upon him as a convenient instrument to be used

against Philip II. By promising to cede the Portuguese colony of Brazil

to her, and by the sale of part of his jewels, Antonio secured means to

fit out a fleet manned by Portuguese exiles and French and English

adventurers. As the Spaniards had not yet occupied the Azores he sailed

to them, but was utterly defeated at sea by the marquis of Santa Cruz

off Saint Michael's on the 27th of July 1582. He now returned to France,

and lived for a time at Ruel near Paris. Peril from the assassins

employed by Philip II. to remove him drove Antonio from one refuge to

another, and he finally came to England. Elizabeth favoured him for much

the same reasons as Catherine de' Medici. In 1589, the year after the

Armada, he accompanied an English expedition under the command of Drake

and Norris to the coast of Spain and Portugal. The force consisted

partly of the queen's ships, and in part of privateers who went in

search of booty. Antonio, with all the credulity of an exile, believed

that his presence would provoke a general rising against Philip II., but

none took place, and the expedition was a costly failure. In 1590 the

pretender left England and returned to France, where he fell into

poverty. His remaining diamonds were disposed of by degrees. The last

and finest was acquired by M. de Sancy, from whom it was purchased by

Sully and included in the jewels of the crown. During his last days he

lived as a private gentleman on a small pension given him by Henry IV.,

and he died in Paris on the 26th of August 1595. He left two

illegitimate sons, and his descendants can be traced till 1687. In

addition to papers published to defend his claims Antonio was the author

of the _Panegyrus Alphonsi Lusitanorum Regis_ (Coimbra, 1550), and of a

cento of the Psalms, _Psalmi Confessionales_ (Paris 1592), which was

translated into English under the title of _The Royal Penitent_ by

Francis Chamberleyn (London, 1659), and into German as _Heilige

Betrachtungen_ (Marburg, 1677).

AUTHORITIES.--Antonio is frequently mentioned in the French, English,

and Spanish state papers of the time. A life of him, attributed to

Gomes Vasconcellos de Figueredo, was published in a French translation

by Mme de Sainctonge at Amsterdam (1696). A modern account of him, _Un

pretendant portugais au XVI. siecle_, by E. Fournier (Paris, 1852), is

based on authentic sources. See also _Dom Antonio Prior de

Crato--notas de bibliographia_, by J. de Aranjo (Lisbon, 1897).

(D. H.)

ANTONIO, NICOLAS (1617-1684), Spanish bibliographer, was born at Seville

on the 31st of July 1617. After taking his degree at Salamanca

(1636-1639), he returned to his native city, wrote his treatise _De

Exilio_ (which was not printed till 1659), and began his monumental

register of Spanish writers. The fame of his learning reached Philip

IV., who conferred the order of Santiago on him in 1645, and sent him as

general agent to Rome in 1654. Returning to Spain in 1679, Antonio died

at Madrid in the spring of 1684. His _Bibliotheca Hispana nova_, dealing

with the works of Spanish authors who flourished after 1500, appeared at

Rome in 1672; the _Bibliotheca Hispana vetus_, a literary history of

Spain from the time of Augustus to the end of the 15th century, was

revised by Manuel Marti, and published by Antonio's friend, Cardinal

Jose Saenz de Aguirre at Rome in 1696. A fine edition of both parts,

with additional matter found in Antonio's manuscripts, and with

supplementary notes by Francisco Perez Bayer, was issued at Madrid in

1787-1788. This great work, incomparably superior to any previous

bibliography, is still unsuperseded and indispensable.

Of Antonio's miscellaneous writings the most important is the

posthumous _Censura de historias fabulosas_ (Valencia, 1742), in which

erudition is combined with critical insight. His _Bibliotheca Hispana

rabinica_ has not been printed; the manuscript is in the national

library at Madrid.

ANTONIO DE LEBRIJA [ANTONIUS NEBRISSENSIS], (1444-1522), Spanish

scholar, was born at Lebrija in the province of Andalusia. After

studying at Salamanca he resided for ten years in Italy, and completed

his education at Bologna University. On his return to Spain (1473), he

devoted himself to the advancement of classical learning amongst his

countrymen. After holding the professorship of poetry and grammar at

Salamanca, he was transferred to the university of Alcala de Henares,

where he lectured until his death in 1522, at the age of seventy-eight.

His services to the cause of classical literature in Spain have been

compared with those rendered by Valla, Erasmus and Budaeus to Italy,

Holland and France. He produced a large number of works on a variety of

subjects, including a Latin and Spanish dictionary, commentaries on

Sedulius and Persius, and a Compendium of Rhetoric, based on Aristotle,

Cicero and Quintilian. His most ambitious work was his chronicle

entitled _Rerum in Hispania Gestarum Decades_ (published in 1545 by his

son as an original work by his father), which twenty years later was

found to be merely a Latin translation of the Spanish chronicle of

Pulgar, which was published at Saragossa in 1567. De Lebrija also took

part in the production of the Complutense polyglot Bible published under

the patronage of Cardinal Jimenes.

Antonio, _Bibliotheca Hispana Nova_, i. 132 (1888); Prescott, _History

of Ferdinand and Isabella_, i. 410 (note); MacCrie, _The Reformation

in Spain in the Sixteenth Century_ (1829).

ANTONIUS, the name of a large number of prominent citizens of ancient

Rome, of the gens Antonia. Antonius the triumvir claimed that his family

was descended from Anton, son of Heracles. Of the Antonii the following

are important.

1. MARCUS ANTONIUS (143-87 B.C.), one of the most distinguished Roman

orators of his time, was quaestor in 113, and praetor in 102 with

proconsular powers, the province of Cilicia being assigned to him. Here

he was so successful against the pirates that a naval triumph was

awarded him. He was consul in 99, censor 97, and held a command in the

Marsic War in 90. An adherent of Sulla, he was put to death by Marius

and Cinna when they obtained possession of Rome (87). Antonius's

reputation for eloquence rests on the authority of Cicero, none of his

orations being extant. He is one of the chief speakers in Cicero's _De

Oratore_.

Velleius Paterculus ii. 22; Appian, _Bell. Civ._ i. 72; Dio Cassius

xlv. 47; Plutarch, _Marius_, 44; Cicero, _Orator_, 5, _Brutus_, 37;

Quintilian, _Instit._ iii. 1, 19; O. Enderlein, _De M. Antonio

oratore_ (Leipzig, 1882).

2. MARCUS ANTONIUS, nicknamed CRETICUS in derision, elder son of Marcus

Antonius, the "orator," and father of the triumvir. He was praetor in 74

B.C., and received an extraordinary command (similar to that bestowed

upon Pompey by the Gabinian law) to clear the sea of pirates, and

thereby assist the operations against Mithradates VI. He failed in the

task, and made himself unpopular by plundering the provinces (Sallust,

_Hist._ iii., fragments ed. B. Maurenbrecher, p. 108; Velleius

Paterculus ii. 31; Cicero, _In Verrem_, iii. 91). He attacked the

Cretans, who had made an alliance with the pirates, but was totally

defeated, most of his ships being sunk. Diodorus Siculus (xl. 1) states

that he only saved himself by a disgraceful treaty. He died soon

afterwards (72-71) in Crete. All authorities are agreed as to his

avarice and incompetence.

3. GAIUS ANTONIUS, nicknamed HYBRIDA from his half-savage disposition

(Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ viii. 213), second son of Marcus Antonius, the

"orator," and uncle of the triumvir. He was one of Sulla's lieutenants

in the Mithradatic War, and, after Sulla's return, remained in Greece to

plunder with a force of cavalry. In 76 he was tried for his

malpractices, but escaped punishment; six years later he was removed

from the senate by the censors, but soon afterwards reinstated. In spite

of his bad reputation, he was elected tribune in 71, praetor in 66, and

consul with Cicero in 63. He secretly supported Catiline, but Cicero won

him over by promising him the rich province of Macedonia. On the

outbreak of the Catilinarian conspiracy, Antonius was obliged to lead an

army into Etruria, but handed over the command on the day of battle to

Marcus Petreius on the ground of ill-health. He then went to Macedonia,

where he made himself so detested by his oppression and extortions that

he left the province, and was accused in Rome (59) both of having taken

part in the conspiracy and of extortion in his province. It was said

that Cicero had agreed with Antonius to share his plunder. Cicero's

defence of Antonius two years before in view of a proposal for his

recall, and also on the occasion of his trial, increased the suspicion.

In spite of Cicero's eloquence, Antonius was condemned, and went into

exile at Cephallenia. He seems to have been recalled by Caesar, since he

was present at a meeting of the senate in 44, and was censor in 42.

Cicero, _In Cat._ iii. 6, _pro Flacco_, 38; Plutarch, _Cicero_, 12;

Dio Cassius xxxvii. 39, 40; xxxviii. 10. On his trial see article in

Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_.

4. MARCUS ANTONIUS, commonly called MARK ANTONY, the Triumvir, grandson

of Antonius the "orator" and son of Antonius Creticus, related on his

mother's side to Julius Caesar, was born about 83 B.C. Under the

influence of his stepfather, Cornelius Lentulus Sura, he spent a

profligate youth. For a time he co-operated with P. Clodius Pulcher,

probably out of hostility to Cicero, who had caused Lentulus Sura to be

put to death as a Catilinarian; the connexion was severed by a

disagreement arising from his relations with Clodius's wife, Fulvia. In

58 he fled to Greece to escape his creditors. After a short time spent

in attendance on the philosophers at Athens, he was summoned by Aulus

Gabinius, governor of Syria, to take part in the campaigns against

Aristobulus in Palestine, and in support of Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt. In

54 he was with Caesar in Gaul. Raised by Caesar's influence to the

offices of quaestor, augur, and tribune of the plebs, he supported the

cause of his patron with great energy, and was expelled from the

senate-house when the Civil War broke out. Deputy-governor of Italy

during Caesar's absence in Spain (49), second in command in the decisive

battle of Pharsalus (48), and again deputy-governor of Italy while

Caesar was in Africa (47), Antony was second only to the dictator, and

seized the opportunity of indulging in the most extravagant excesses,

depicted by Cicero in the _Philippics_. In 46 he seems to have taken

offence because Caesar insisted on payment for the property of Pompey

which Antony professedly had purchased, but had in fact simply

appropriated. The estrangement was not of long continuance; for we find

Antony meeting the dictator at Narbo the following year, and rejecting

the suggestion of Trebonius that he should join in the conspiracy that

was already on foot. In 44 he was consul with Caesar, and seconded his

ambition by the famous offer of the crown at the festival of Lupercalia

(February 15). After the murder of Caesar on the 15th of March, Antony

conceived the idea of making himself sole ruler. At first he seemed

disposed to treat the conspirators leniently, but at the same time he so

roused the people against them by the publication of Caesar's will and

by his eloquent funeral oration, that they were obliged to leave the

city. He surrounded himself with a bodyguard of Caesar's veterans, and

forced the senate to transfer to him the province of Cisalpine Gaul,

which was then administered by Decimus Junius Brutus, one of the

conspirators. Brutus refused to surrender the province, and Antony set

out to attack him in October 44, But at this time Octavian, whom Caesar

had adopted as his son, arrived from Illyria, and claimed the

inheritance of his "father." Octavian obtained the support of the senate

and of Cicero; and the veteran troops of the dictator flocked to his

standard. Antony was denounced as a public enemy, and Octavian was

entrusted with the command of the war against him. Antony was defeated

at Mutina (43) where he was besieging Brutus. The consuls Aulus Hirtius

and C. Vibius Pansa, however, fell in the battle, and the senate became

suspicious of Octavian, who, irritated at the refusal of a triumph and

the appointment of Brutus to the command over his head, entered Rome at

the head of his troops, and forced the senate to bestow the consulship

upon him (August 19th). Meanwhile, Antony escaped to Cisalpine Gaul,

effected a junction with Lepidus and marched towards Rome with a large

force of infantry and cavalry. Octavian betrayed his party, and came to

terms with Antony and Lepidus. The three leaders met at Bononia and

adopted the title of _Triumviri reipublicae constituendae_ as joint

rulers. Gaul was to belong to Antony, Spain to Lepidus, and Africa,

Sardinia and Sicily to Octavian. The arrangement was to last for five

years. A reign of terror followed; proscriptions, confiscations, and

executions became general; some of the noblest citizens were put to

death, and Cicero fell a victim to Antony's revenge. In the following

year (42) Antony and Octavian proceeded against the conspirators Cassius

and Brutus, and by the two battles of Philippi annihilated the

senatorial and republican parties. Antony proceeded to Greece, and

thence to Asia Minor, to procure money for his veterans and complete the

subjugation of the eastern provinces. On his passage through Cilicia in

41 he fell a victim to the charms of Cleopatra, in whose company he

spent the winter at Alexandria. At length he was aroused by the Parthian

invasion of Syria and the report of an outbreak between Fulvia his wife

and Lucius his brother on the one hand and Octavian on the other. On

arriving in Italy he found that Octavian was already victorious; on the

death of Fulvia, a reconciliation was effected between the triumvirs,

and cemented by the marriage of Antony with Octavia, the sister of his

colleague. A new division of the Roman world was made at Brundusium,

Lepidus receiving Africa, Octavian the west, and Antony the east.

Returning to his province Antony made several attempts to subdue the

Parthians, without any decided success. In 39 he visited Athens, where

he behaved in a most extravagant manner, assuming the attributes of the

god Dionysus. In 37 he crossed over to Italy, and renewed the

triumvirate for five years at a meeting with Octavian. Returning to

Syria, he resumed relations with Cleopatra. His treatment of Octavia,

her brother's desire to get rid of him, and the manner in which he

disposed of kingdoms and provinces in favour of Cleopatra alienated his

supporters. In 32 the senate deprived him of his powers and declared war

against Cleopatra. After two years spent in preparations, Antony was

defeated at the battle of Actium (2nd September 31). Once more he sought

refuge in the society of Cleopatra, who had escaped with sixty ships to

Egypt. He was pursued by his enemies and his troops abandoned him.

Thereupon he committed suicide in the mistaken belief that Cleopatra had

already done so (30 B.C.). Antony had been married in succession to

Fadia, Antonia, Fulvia and Octavia, and left behind him a number of

children.

See ROME, _History_, II. "The Republic" (_ad fin._); Caesar, _De Bella

Gallico, De Bella Civili_; Plutarch, Lives of _Antony, Brutus, Cicero,

Caesar_; Cicero, _Letters_ (ed. Tyrrell and Purser) and _Philippics_;

Appian, _Bell. Civ._ i.-v.; Dio Cassius xli.-liii. In addition to the

standard histories, see V. Gardthausen, _Augustus und seine Zeit_

(Leipzig, 1891-1904); W. Drumann, _Geschichte Roms_ (2nd ed. P.

Groebe, 1899), i. pp. 46-384; article by Groebe in Pauly-Wissowa's

_Realencyclopadie_; and a short but vivid sketch by de Quincey in his

_Essay on the Caesars_.

5. LUCIUS ANTONIUS, youngest son of Marcus Antonius Creticus, and

brother of the triumvir. In 44, as tribune of the people, he brought

forward a law authorizing Caesar to nominate the chief magistrates

during his absence from Rome. After the murder of Caesar, he supported

his brother Marcus. He proposed an agrarian law in favour of the people

and Caesar's veterans, and took part in the operations at Mutina (43).

In 41 he was consul, and had a dispute with Octavian, which led to the

so-called Perusian War, in which he was supported by Fulvia (Mark

Antony's wife), who was anxious to recall her husband from Cleopatra's

court. Later, observing the bitter feelings that had been evoked by the

distribution of land among the veterans of Caesar, Antonius and Fulvia

changed their attitude, and stood forward as the defenders of those who

had suffered from its operation. Antonius marched on Rome, drove out

Lepidus, and promised the people that the triumvirate should be

abolished. On the approach of Octavian, he retired to Perusia in

Etruria, where he was besieged by three armies, and compelled to

surrender (winter of 41). His life was spared, and he was sent by

Octavian to Spain as governor. Nothing is known of the circumstances or

date of his death. Cicero, in his _Philippics_, actuated in great

measure by personal animosity, gives a highly unfavourable view of his

character.

Appian, _Bellum Civile_, v. 14 ff.; Dio Cassius xlviii. 5-14.

6. GAIUS ANTONIUS, second son of Marcus Antonius Creticus, and brother

of the triumvir. In 49 he was legate of Caesar and, with P. Cornelius

Dolabella, was entrusted with the defence of Illyricum against the

Pompeians. Dolabella's fleet was destroyed; Antonius was shut up in the

island of Curicta and forced to surrender. In 44 he was city praetor,

his brothers Marcus and Lucius being consul and tribune respectively in

the same year. Gaius was appointed to the province of Macedonia, but on

his way thither fell into the hands of M. Junius Brutus on the coast of

Illyria. Brutus at first treated him generously, but ultimately put him

to death (42).

Plutarch, _Brutus_, 28; Dio Cassius xlvii. 21-24. On the whole family,

see the articles in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, i. pt. 2

(1894).

ANTONOMASIA, in rhetoric, the Greek term for a substitution of any

epithet or phrase for a proper name; as "Pelides," or "the son of

Peleus," for Achilles; "the Stagirite" for Aristotle; "the author of

_Paradise Lost_" for Milton; "the little corporal" for Napoleon I.;

"Macedonia's madman" for Alexander the Great, &c. &c. The opposite

substitution of a proper name for some generic term is also sometimes

called antonomasia; as "a Cicero" for an orator.

ANTRAIGUES, EMMANUEL HENRI LOUIS ALEXANDRE DE LAUNAY, COMTE D' (c.

1755-1812), French publicist and political adventurer, was a nephew of

Francois Emmanuel de Saint-Priest (1735-1821), one of the last ministers

of Louis XVI. He was a cavalry captain, but, having little taste for the

army, left it and travelled extensively, especially in the East. On his

return to Paris, he sought the society of philosophers and artists,

visited Voltaire at Ferney for three months, but was more attracted by

J.J. Rousseau, with whom he became somewhat intimate. He published a

_Memoire sur les etats-generaux_, supported the Revolution

enthusiastically when it broke out, was elected deputy, and took the

oath to the constitution; but he suddenly changed his mind completely,

became a defender of the monarchy and emigrated in 1790. He was the

secret agent of the comte de Provence (Louis XVIII.) at different courts

of Europe, and at the same time received money from the courts he

visited. He published a number of pamphlets, _Des monstres ravagent

partout_, _Point d'accommodement_, &c. At Venice, where he was attache

to the Russian legation, he was arrested in 1797, but escaped to Russia.

Sent as Russian attache to Dresden, he published a violent pamphlet

against Napoleon I., and was expelled by the Saxon government. He then

went to London, and it was universally believed that he betrayed the

secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit to the British cabinet, but his

recent biographer, Pingaud, contests this. In 1812 he and his wife

Madame Saint-Huberty, an operatic singer, were assassinated by an

Italian servant whom they had dismissed. It has never been known whether

the murder was committed from private or political motives.

See H. Vaschalde, _Notice bibliographique sur Louis Alexandre de

Launay, comte d'Antraigues, sa vie et ses oeuvres_; Leonce Pingaud,

_Un Agent secret sous la revolution et l'empire, le comte

d'Antraigues_ (Paris, 1893); Edouard de Goncourt, _La Saint-Huberty et

l'opera au XVIII^e siecle_.

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1ST EARL OF (d. 1636), called "Arranach,"

having been brought up in the Scottish island of Arran by the Hamiltons,

was the 4th son of Sorley Boy MacDonnell (q.v.), and of Mary, daughter

of Conn O'Neill, 1st earl of Tyrone. He fought at first against the

English government, participating in his brother James's victory over

Sir John Chichester at Carrickfergus in November 1597, and joining in

O'Neill's rebellion in 1600. But on the 16th of December he signed

articles with Sir Arthur Chichester and was granted protection; in 1601

he became head of his house by his elder brother's death, his pardon

being confirmed to him; and in 1602 he submitted to Lord Mountjoy and

was knighted. On the accession of James I. in 1603 he obtained a grant

of the Route and the Glynns (Glens) districts, together with the island

of Rathlin, and remained faithful to the government in spite of the

unpopularity he thereby incurred among his kinsmen, who conspired to

depose him. In 1607 he successfully defended himself against the charge

of disloyalty on the occasion of the flight of the earls of Tyrone and

Tyrconnell, and rendered services to the government by settling and

civilizing his districts, being well received the following year by

James in London. In 1618 he was created Viscount Dunluce, and

subsequently he was appointed a privy councillor and lord-lieutenant of

the county of Antrim. On the 12th of December 1620 he was created earl

of Antrim. In 1621 he was charged with harbouring Roman Catholic

priests, confessed his offence and was pardoned. He offered his

assistance in 1625 during the prospect of a Spanish invasion, but was

still regarded as a person that needed watching. His arbitrary conduct

in Ireland in 1627 was suggested as a fit subject for examination by the

Star Chamber, but his fidelity to the government was strictly maintained

to the last. In 1631 he was busy repairing Protestant churches, and in

1634 he attended the Irish parliament. He made an important agreement in

1635 for the purchase from James Campbell, Lord Cantire, of the lordship

of Cantire, or Kintyre, of which the MacDonnells had been dispossessed

in 1600 by Argyll; but his possession was successfully opposed by Lord

Lorne. He died on the 10th of December 1636. Antrim married Alice,

daughter of Hugh O'Neill, earl of Tyrone, by whom, besides six

daughters, he had Randal, 2nd earl and 1st marquess of Antrim (q.v.),

and Alexander, 3rd earl. Three other sons, Maurice, Francis and James,

were probably illegitimate. The earldom has continued in the family down

to the present day, the 11th earl (b. 1851) succeeding in 1869.

See also _An Historical Account of the MacDonnells of Antrim_, by G.

Hill (1873).

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1ST MARQUESS of (1609-1683), son of the 1st

earl of Antrim, was born in 1609 and educated as a Roman Catholic. He

travelled abroad, and on his return in 1634 went to court, next year

marrying Katherine Manners, widow of the 1st duke of Buckingham, and

living on her fortune for some years in great splendour. In 1639, on the

outbreak of the Scottish war, he initiated a scheme of raising a force

in Ireland to attack Argyll in Scotland and recover Kintyre (or

Cantire), a district formerly possessed by his family; but the plan,

discouraged and ridiculed by Strafford, miscarried.[1] Soon afterwards

he returned to Ireland, and sought in 1641 to create a diversion,

together with Ormonde, for Charles I. against the parliament. He joined

in his schemes Lord Slane and Sir Phelim O'Neill, later leaders of the

rebellion, but on the outbreak of the rebellion in the autumn he

dissociated himself from his allies and retired to his castle at

Dunluce. His suspicious conduct, however, and his Roman Catholicism,

caused him to be regarded as an enemy by the English party. In May 1642

he was captured at Dunluce Castle by the parliamentary general Robert

Munro, and imprisoned at Carrickfergus. Escaping thence he joined the

queen at York; and subsequently, having proceeded to Ireland to

negotiate a cessation of hostilities, he was again captured with his

papers in May 1643 and confined at Carrickfergus, thence once more

escaping and making his way to Kilkenny, the headquarters of the Roman

Catholic confederation. He returned to Oxford in December with a scheme

for raising 10,000 Irish for service in England and 2000 to join

Montrose in Scotland, which through the influence of the duchess of

Buckingham secured the consent of the king. On the 26th of January 1644

Antrim was created a marquess. He returned to Kilkenny in February, took

the oath of association, and was made a member of the council and

lieutenant-general of the forces of the Catholic confederacy. The

confederacy, however, giving him no support in his projects, he threw up

his commission, and with Ormonde's help despatched about 1600 men in

June to Montrose's assistance in Scotland, subsequently returning to

Oxford and being sent by the king in 1645 with letters for the queen at

St Germains. He proceeded thence to Flanders and fitted out two frigates

with military stores, which he brought to the prince of Wales at

Falmouth. He visited Cork and afterwards in July 1646 joined his troops

in Scotland, with the hope of expelling Argyll from Kintyre; but he was

obliged to retire by order of the king, and returning to Ireland threw

himself into the intrigues between the various factions. In 1647 he was

appointed with two others by the confederacy to negotiate a treaty with

the prince of Wales in France, and though he anticipated his companions

by starting a week before them, he failed to secure the coveted

lord-lieutenancy, which was confirmed to Ormonde. He now ceased to

support the Roman Catholics or the king's cause; opposed the treaty

between Ormonde and the confederates; supported the project of union

between O'Neill and the parliament; and in 1649 entered into

communications with Cromwell, for whom he performed various services,

though there appears no authority to support Carte's story that Antrim

was the author of a forged agreement for the betrayal of the king's army

by Lord Inchiquin.[2] Subsequently he joined Ireton, and was present at

the siege of Carlow. He returned to England in December 1650, and in

lieu of his confiscated estate received a pension of L500 and later of

L800, together with lands in Mayo. At the Restoration Antrim was

excluded from the Act of Oblivion on account of his religion, and on

presenting himself at court was imprisoned in the Tower, subsequently

being called before the lords justices in Ireland. In 1663 he succeeded,

in spite of Ormonde's opposition, in securing a decree of innocence from

the commissioners of claims. This raised an outcry from the adventurers

who had been put in possession of his lands, and who procured a fresh

trial; but Antrim appealed to the king, and through the influence of the

queen mother obtained a pardon, his estates being restored to him by the

Irish, Act of Explanation in 1665.[3] Antrim died on the 3rd of February

1683. He is described by Clarendon as of handsome appearance but "of

excessive pride and vanity and of a marvellous weak and narrow

understanding." He married secondly Rose, daughter of Sir Henry O'Neill,

but had no children, being succeeded in the earldom by his brother

Alexander, 3rd earl of Antrim.

See _Hibernia Anglicana_, by R. Cox (1689-1690) esp. app. xlix. vol.

ii. 206; _History of the Irish Confederation_, by J.T. Gilbert

(1882-1891); _Aphorismical Discovery_ (Irish Archaeological Society,

1879-1880); _Thomason Tracts_ (Brit. Mus.), E 59 (18), 149 (12), 138

(7), 153 (19), 61 (23); _Murder will out, or the King's Letter

justifying the Marquess of Antrim_ (1689); _Hist. MSS. Comm.

Series--MSS. of Marq. of Ormonde._ (P. C. Y.)