[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.
1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.
To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
"^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)
2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.
3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.
5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines.
6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.
Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.
References to other articles in this work are in all upper
case (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They
usually begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".
Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in
Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
including URLs of available internet versions.
----------Subject: Start--------
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
large block.
To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words
"first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
"first.{1,100}second"
End Transcriber's Notes.]
----------------------------------
[Image: Spine]
History For Ready Reference, Volume 4 of 6
From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists
Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History
For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,
And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better
And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language.
BY J. N. LARNED
With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies
And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley
In Five Volumes
VOLUME IV—NICÆA TO TUNIS
SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS.
THE C. A. NICHOLS COMPANY, PUBLISHERS
MDCCCXCV
COPYRIGHT, 1894.
BY J. N. LARNED.
The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts., U. S. A.
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.
Two maps of Central Europe, at the abdication of Charles V.
(1556), and showing the distribution of Religions about 1618,
To follow page 2458
Map of Eastern Europe in 1768, and of Central Europe at
the Peace of Campo Formio (1797),
To follow page 2554
Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent,
under Trajan (A. D. 116),
To follow page 2712
Map of Europe at the death of Justinian (A. D. 565),
To follow page 2742
Two maps, of Eastern Europe and Central Europe, in 1715,
To follow page 2762
Four development maps of Spain,
9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries,
To follow page 2976
LOGICAL OUTLINE, IN COLORS.
Roman history,
To follow page 2656
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES.
Ninth and Tenth Centuries,
To follow page 2746
{2359}
NICÆA OR NICE:
The founding of the city.
Nicæa, or Nice, in Bithynia, was founded by Antigonus, one of
the successors of Alexander the Great, and received originally
the name Antigonea. Lysimachus changed the name to Nicæa, in
honor of his wife.
NICÆA OR NICE:
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 325.
The First Council.
"Constantine … determined to lay the question of Arianism [see
ARIANISM] before an Œcumenical council. … The council met [A.
D. 325] at Nicæa—the 'City of Victory'—in Bithynia, close to
the Ascanian Lake, and about twenty miles from Nicomedia. … It
was an Eastern council, and, like the Eastern councils, was
held within a measurable distance from the seat of government.
… Of the 318 bishops … who subscribed its decrees, only eight
came from the West, and the language in which the Creed was
composed was Greek, which scarcely admitted of a Latin
rendering. The words of the Creed are even now recited by the
Russian Emperor at his coronation. Its character, then, is
strictly Oriental. … Of the 318 members of the Council, we are
told by Philostorgius, the Arian historian, that 22 espoused
the cause of Arius, though other writers regard the minority
as still less, some fixing it at 17, others at 15, others as
low as 13. But of those 318 the first place in rank, though
not the first in mental power and energy of character, was
accorded to the aged bishop of Alexandria. He was the
representative of the most intellectual diocese in the Eastern
Church. He alone, of all the bishops, was named 'Papa,' or
'Pope.' The 'Pope of Rome' was a phrase which had not yet
emerged in history; but 'Pope of Alexandria' was a well-known
title of dignity."
_R. W. Bush,
St. Athanasius,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
lectures 3-5._
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1080.
Acquired by the Turks.
The capital of the Sultan of Roum.
See TURKS (THE SELJUK): A. D. 1073-1092.
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1096-1097.
Defeat and slaughter of the First Crusaders.
Recovery from the Turks.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1204-1261.
Capital of the Greek Empire.
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1330.
Capture by the Ottoman Turks.
See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.
NICÆA OR NICE: A. D. 1402.
Sacked by Timour.
See TIMOUR.
----------NICARAGUA: Start--------
NICARAGUA:
The Name.
Nicaragua was originally the name of a native chief who ruled
in the region on the Lake when it was first penetrated by the
Spaniards, under Gil Gonzalez, in 1522. "Upon the return of
Gil Gonzalez, the name Nicaragua became famous, and besides
being applied to the cacique and his town, was gradually given
to the surrounding country, and to the lake."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page. 489, foot-note._
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1502.
Coasted by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1821-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Attempted federations and their failure.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
Joint protectorate of the United States and
Great Britain over the proposed inter-oceanic canal.
"The acquisition of California in May, 1848, by the treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the vast rush of population, which
followed almost immediately on the development of the gold
mines, to that portion of the Pacific coast, made the opening
of interoceanic communication a matter of paramount importance
to the United States. In December, 1846, had been ratified a
treaty with New Granada (which in 1862 assumed the name of
Colombia) by which a right of transit over the isthmus of
Panama was given to the United States, and the free transit
over the isthmus 'from the one to the other sea' guaranteed by
both of the contracting powers. Under the shelter of this
treaty the Panama Railroad Company, composed of citizens of
the United States, and supplied by capital from the United
States, was organized in 1850 and put in operation in 1855. In
1849, before, therefore, this company had taken shape, the
United States entered into a treaty with Nicaragua for the
opening of a ship-canal from Greytown (San Juan), on the
Atlantic coast, to the Pacific coast, by way of the Lake of
Nicaragua. Greytown, however, was then virtually occupied by
British settlers, mostly from Jamaica, and the whole eastern
coast of Nicaragua, so far at least as the eastern terminus of
such a canal was concerned, was held, so it was maintained by
Great Britain, by the Mosquito Indians, over whom Great
Britain claimed to exercise a protectorate. That the Mosquito
Indians had no such settled territorial site; that, if they
had, Great Britain had no such protectorate or sovereignty
over them as authorized her to exercise dominion over their
soil, even if they had any, are positions which … the United
States has repeatedly affirmed. But the fact that the
pretension was set up by Great Britain, and that, though it
were baseless, any attempt to force a canal through the
Mosquito country, might precipitate a war, induced Mr.
Clayton, Secretary of State in the administration of General
Taylor, to ask through Sir H. L. Bulwer, British minister at
Washington, the administration of Lord John Russell (Lord
Palmerston being then foreign secretary) to withdraw the
British pretensions to the coast so as to permit the
construction of the canal under the joint auspices of the
United States and of Nicaragua. This the British Government
declined to do, but agreed to enter into a treaty for a joint
protectorate over the proposed canal." This treaty, which was
signed at Washington April 19, 1850, and of which the
ratifications were exchanged on the 4th of July following, is
commonly referred to as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Its
language in the first article is that "the Governments of the
United States and of Great Britain hereby declare that neither
the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself
any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that
neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications
commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or
fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
Central America; nor will either make use of any protection
which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which
either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the
purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or
of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of
assuming or exercising dominion over the same;
{2360}
nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of
any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence
that either may possess, with any State or Government through
whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of
acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens
or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to
commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not
be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of
the other." Since the execution of this treaty there have been
repeated controversies between the two governments respecting
the interpretation of its principal clauses. Great Britain
having maintained her dominion over the Belize, or British
Honduras, it has been claimed by the United States that the
treaty is void, or, has become voidable at the option of the
United States, on the grounds (in the language of a dispatch
from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, dated July 19,
1884) "first, that the consideration of the treaty having
failed, its object never having been accomplished, the United
States did not receive that for which they covenanted; and,
second, that Great Britain has persistently violated her
agreement not to colonize the Central American coast."
_F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
chapter 6, section 150 f. (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Powers (edition of 1889),
page 440._
NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
The invasion of Walker and his Filibusters.
"Its geographical situation gave … importance to Nicaragua. It
contains a great lake, which is approached from the Atlantic
by the river San Juan; and from the west end of the lake there
are only 20 miles to the coast of the Pacific. Ever since the
time of Cortes there have been projects for connecting the two
oceans through the lake of Nicaragua. … Hence Nicaragua has
always been thought of great importance to the United States.
The political struggles of the state, ever since the failure
of the confederation, had sunk into a petty rivalry between
the two towns of Leon and Granada. Leon enjoys the distinction
of being the first important town in Central America to raise
the cry of independence in 1815, and it had always maintained
the liberal character which this disclosed. Castellon, the
leader of the Radical party, of which Leon was the seat,
called in to help him an American named William Walker.
Walker, who was born in 1824, was a young roving American who
had gone during the gold rush of 1850 to California, and
become editor of a newspaper in San Francisco. In those days
it was supposed in the United States that the time for
engulfing the whole of Spanish America had come. Lopez had
already made his descent on Cuba; and Walker, in July, 1853,
had organized a band of filibusters for the conquest of
Sonora, and the peninsula of California, which had been left
to Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This wild
expedition … was a total failure; but when Walker came back to
his newspapers after an absence of seven months, he found
himself a hero. His fame, as we see, had reached Central
America; and he at once accepted Castellon's offer. In 1855,
having collected a band of 70 adventurers in California, he
landed in the country, captured the town of Granada, and,
aided by the intrigues of the American consul, procured his
own appointment as General-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan army.
Walker was now master of the place: and his own provisional
President, Rivas, having turned against him, he displaced him,
and in 1856 became President himself. He remained master of
Nicaragua for nearly two years, levying arbitrary customs on
the traffic of the lake, and forming plans for a great
military state to be erected on the ruins of Spanish America.
One of Walker's first objects was to seize the famous
gold-mines of Chontales, and the sudden discovery that the
entire sierra of America is a gold-bearing region had a good
deal to do with his extraordinary enterprise. Having assured
himself of the wealth of the country, he now resolved to keep
it for himself, and this proved in the end to be his ruin. The
statesmen of the United States, who had at first supposed that
he would cede them the territory, now withdrew their support
from him: the people of the neighbouring states rose in arms
against him, and Walker was obliged to capitulate, with the
remains of his filibustering party, at Rivas in 1857. Walker,
still claiming to be President of Nicaragua, went to New
Orleans, where he collected a second band of filibusters, at
the head of whom he again landed near the San Juan river
towards the end of the year: this time he was arrested and
sent back home by the American commodore. His third and last
expedition, in 1860, was directed against Honduras, where he
hoped to meet with a good reception at the hands of the
Liberal party. Instead of this he fell into the hands of the
soldiers of Guardiola, by whom he was tried as a pirate and
shot, September 12, 1860."
_E. J. Payne,
History of European Colonies,
chapter 21, section 8._
"Though he never evinced much military or other capacity,
Walker, so long as he acted under color of authority from the
chiefs of the faction he patronized, was generally successful
against the pitiful rabble styled soldiers by whom his
progress was resisted. … But his very successes proved the
ruin of the faction to which he had attached himself, by
exciting the natural jealousy and alarm of the natives who
mainly composed it; and his assumption … of the title of
President of Nicaragua, speedily followed by a decree
reestablishing Slavery in that country, exposed his purpose
and insured his downfall. As if madly bent on ruin, he
proceeded to confiscate the steamboats and other property of
the Nicaragua Transit Company, thereby arresting all American
travel to and from California through that country, and
cutting himself off from all hope of further recruiting his
forces from the throngs of sanguine or of baffled
gold-seekers, who might otherwise have been attracted to his
standard. Yet he maintained the unequal contest for about two
years."
_H. Greeley,
The American Conflict,
volume 1, chapter 19._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 3, chapters 16-17._
_J. J. Roche,
The Story of the Filibusters,
chapters 5-18._
----------NICARAGUA: End--------
NICE (NIZZA), Asia Minor.
See NICÆA.
----------NICE, France: Start--------
NICE (NIZZA), France: A. D. 1388.
Acquisition by the House of Savoy.
See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.
{2361}
NICE: A. D. 1542.
Siege by French and Turks.
Capture of the town.
Successful resistance of the citadel.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
NICE: A. D. 1792.
Annexation to the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
NICE: A. D. 1860.
Cession to France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------NICE, France: End--------
NICEPHORUS I.,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D. 802-811.
Nicephorus II.,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 963-969.
Nicephorus III.,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1078-1081.
NICHOLAS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1825-1855.
Nicholas I., Pope, 858-867.
Nicholas II., Pope, 1058-1061.
Nicholas III., Pope, 1277-1280.
Nicholas IV., Pope, 1288-1292.
Nicholas V., Pope, 1447-1455.
Nicholas Swendson, King of Denmark, 1103-1134.
NICIAS (NIKIAS), and the Siege of Syracuse.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
NICIAS (NIKIAS), The Peace of.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
NICOLET, Jean, Explorations of.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
----------NICOMEDIA: Start--------
NICOMEDIA: A. D. 258.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
NICOMEDIA: A. D. 292-305.
The court of Diocletian.
"To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition … of
Diocletian, who employed his leisure, and the wealth of the
east, in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city placed on the
verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal distance between
the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste of the monarch, and
at the expense of the people, Nicomedia acquired, in the space
of a few years, a degree of magnificence which might appear to
have required the labour of ages, and became inferior only to
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in extent or populousness. …
Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,
celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful whether
he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13._
See ROME: A. D. 284-305.
NICOMEDIA: A. D. 1326.
Capture by the Turks.
See TURKS (OTTOMAN): A. D. 1326-1359.
----------NICOMEDIA: End--------
NICOPOLIS.
Augustus gave this name to a city which he founded, B. C. 31,
in commemoration of the victory at Actium, on the site of the
camp which his army occupied.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 28.
----------NICOPOLIS: Start--------
NICOPOLIS, Armenia, Battle of (B. C. 66).
The decisive battle in which Pompeius defeated Mithridates and
ended the long Mithridatic wars was fought, B. C. 66, in
Lesser Armenia, at a place near which Pompeius founded a city
called Nicopolis, the site of which is uncertain.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 8._
NICOPOLIS: Battle of (B. C. 48).
See ROME: B. C. 47-46.
----------NICOPOLIS, Armenia: End--------
NICOPOLIS, Bulgaria, Battle of (A. D. 1396).
See TURKS (THE OTTOMAN): A. D. 1389-1403.
NICOSIA:
Taken and sacked by the Turks (1570).
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
NIEUPORT, Battle of (1600).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
NIGER COMPANY, The Royal.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
NIHILISM.
NIHILISTS.
"In Tikomirov's work on Russia seven or eight pages are
devoted to the severe condemnation of the use of the
expressions 'nihilism' and 'nihilist.' Nevertheless … they are
employed universally, and all the world understands what is
meant by them in an approximate and relative way. … It was a
novelist who first baptized the party who called themselves at
that time, 'new men.' It was Ivan Turguenief, who by the mouth
of one of the characters in his celebrated novel, 'Fathers and
Sons,' gave the young generation the name of nihilists. But it
was not of his coinage; Royer-Collard first stamped it; Victor
Hugo had already said that the negation of the infinite led
directly to nihilism, and Joseph Lemaistre had spoken of the
nihilism, more or less sincere, of the contemporary
generations; but it was reserved for the author of 'Virgin
Soil' to bring to light and make famous this word; which after
making a great stir in his own country attracted the attention
of the whole world. The reign of Nicholas I. was an epoch of
hard oppression. When he ascended the throne, the conspiracy
of the Decembrists broke out, and this sudden revelation of
the revolutionary spirit steeled the already inflexible soul
of the Czar. Nicholas, although fond of letters and an
assiduous reader of Homer, was disposed to throttle his
enemies, and would not have hesitated to pluck out the brains
of Russia; he was very near suppressing all the universities
and schools, and inaugurating a voluntary retrocession to
Asiatic barbarism. He did mutilate and reduce the instruction,
he suppressed the chair of European political laws, and after
the events of 1848 in France he seriously considered the idea
of closing his frontiers with a cordon of troops to beat back
foreign liberalism like the cholera or the plague. … However,
it was under his sceptre, under his systematic oppression,
that, by confession of the great revolutionary statesman
Herzen, Russian thought developed as never before; that the
emancipation of the intelligence, which this very statesman
calls a tragic event, was accomplished, and a national
literature was brought to light and began to flourish. When
Alexander II. succeeded to the throne, when the bonds of
despotism were loosened and the blockade with which Nicholas
vainly tried to isolate his empire was raised, the field was
ready for the intellectual and political strife. … Before
explaining how nihilism is the outcome of intelligence, we
must understand what is meant by intelligence in Russia. It
means a class composed of all those, of whatever profession or
estate, who have at heart the advancement of intellectual
life, and contribute in every way toward it. It may be said,
indeed, that such a class is to be found in every country; but
there is this difference,—in other countries the class is not
a unit; there are factions, or a large number of its members
shun political and social discussion in order to enjoy the
serene atmosphere of the world of art, while in Russia the
intelligence means a common cause, a homogeneous spirit,
subversive and revolutionary withal. … Whence came the
revolutionary element in Russia?
{2362}
From the Occident, from France, from the negative,
materialist, sensualist philosophy of the Encyclopædia,
imported into Russia by Catherine II.; and later from Germany,
from Kantism and Hegelianism, imbibed by Russian youth at the
German universities, and which they diffused throughout their
own country with characteristic Sclav impetuosity. By 'Pure
Reason' and transcendental idealism, Herzen and Bakunine, the
first apostles of nihilism, were inspired. But the ideas
brought from Europe to Russia soon allied themselves with an
indigenous or possibly an Oriental element; namely, a sort of
quietist fatalism, which leads to the darkest and most
despairing pessimism. On the whole, nihilism is rather a
philosophical conception of the sum of life than a purely
democratic and revolutionary movement. … Nihilism had no
political color about it at the beginning. During the decade
between 1860 and 1870 the youth of Russia was seized with a
sort of fever for negation, a fierce antipathy toward
everything that was,—authorities, institutions, customary
ideas, and old-fashioned dogmas. In Turguenief's novel,
'Fathers and Sons,' we meet with Bazarof, a froward,
ill-mannered, intolerable fellow, who represents this type.
After 1871 the echo of the Paris Commune and emissaries of the
Internationals crossed the frontier, and the nihilists began
to bestir themselves, to meet together clandestinely, and to
send out propaganda. Seven years later they organized an era
of terror, assassination, and explosions. Thus three phases
have followed upon one another,—thought, word, and deed,—along
that road which is never so long as it looks, the road that
leads from the word to the act, from Utopia to crime. And yet
nihilism never became a political party as we understand the
term. It has no defined creed or official programme. The
fulness of its despair embraces all negatives and all acute
revolutionary forms. Anarchists, federalists, cantonalists,
covenanters, terrorists, all who are unanimous in a desire to
sweep away the present order, are grouped under the ensign of
nihil."
_E. P. Bazan,
Russia, its People and its Literature,
book 2, chapters 1-2._
"Out of Russia, an already extended list of revolutionary
spirits in this land has attracted the attention and kept
curiosity on the alert. We call them Nihilists,—of which the
Russian pronunciation is neegilist, which, however, is now
obsolete. Confined to the terrorist group in Europe, the
number of these persons is certainly very small. Perhaps, as
is thought in Russia, there are 500 in all, who busy
themselves, even if reluctantly, with thoughts of resorting to
bombs and murderous weapons to inspire terror. But it is not
exactly this group that is meant when we speak of that
nihilistic force in society which extends everywhere, into all
circles, and finds support and strongholds at widely spread
points. It is indeed not very different from what elsewhere in
Europe is regarded as culture, advanced culture: the profound
scepticism in regard to our existing institutions in their
present form, what we call royal prerogative, church,
marriage, property."
_Georg Brandes,
Impressions of Russia,
chapter 4._
"The genuine Nihilism was a philosophical and literary
movement, which flourished in the first decade after the
Emancipation of the Serfs, that is to say, between 1860 and
1870. It is now (1883] absolutely extinct, and only a few
traces are left of it, which are rapidly disappearing. …
Nihilism was a struggle for the emancipation of intelligence
from every kind of dependence, and it advanced side by side
with that for the emancipation of the labouring classes from
serfdom. The fundamental principle of Nihilism, properly
so-called, was absolute individualism. It was the negation, in
the name of individual liberty of all the obligations imposed
upon the individual by society, by family life, and by
religion. Nihilism was a passionate and powerful reaction, not
against political despotism, but against the moral despotism
that weighs upon the private and inner life of the individual.
But it must be confessed that our predecessors, at least in
the earlier days, introduced into this highly pacific struggle
the same spirit of rebellion and almost the same fanaticism
that characterises the present movement."
_Stepniak,
Underground Russia,
introduction._
ALSO IN:
_Stepniak,
The Russian Storm-Cloud._
_L. Tikhomirov,
Russia, Political and Social,
books 6-7 (volume 2)._
_E. Noble,
The Russian Revolt._
_A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 3, chapter 4._
See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881;
and ANARCHISTS.
NIKA SEDITION, The.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
NIKIAS.
See NICIAS.
NILE, Naval Battle of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
NIMEGUEN:
Origin.
See BATAVIANS.
NIMEGUEN: A. D. 1591.
Siege and capture by Prince Maurice.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
NIMEGUEN, The Peace of (1678-1679).
The war which Louis XIV. began in 1672 by attacking Holland,
with the co-operation of his English pensioner, Charles II.,
and which roused against him a defensive coalition of Spain,
Germany and Denmark with the Dutch (see NETHERLANDS: A. D.
1672-1674, and 1674-1678), was ended by a series of treaties
negotiated at Nimeguen in 1678 and 1679. The first of these
treaties, signed August 10, 1678, was between France and
Holland. "France and Holland kept what was in their
possession, except Maestricht and its dependencies which were
restored to Holland. France therefore kept her conquests in
Senegal and Guiana. This was all the territory lost by Holland
in the terrible war which had almost annihilated her. The
United Provinces pledged themselves to neutrality in the war
which might continue between France and the other powers, and
guaranteed the neutrality of Spain, after the latter should
have signed the peace. France included Sweden in the treaty;
Holland included in it Spain and the other allies who should
make peace within six weeks after the exchange of
ratifications. To the treaty of peace was annexed a treaty of
commerce, concluded for twenty-five years."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 1, chapter 6._
The peace between France and Spain was signed September 17.
France gave back, in the Spanish Netherlands and elsewhere,
"Charleroi, Binch, Ath, Oudenarde, and Courtrai, which she had
gained by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle; the town and duchy of
Limburg, all the country beyond the Meuse, Ghent, Rodenhus,
and the district of the Waes, Leuze, and St. Ghislain, with
Puycerda in Catalonia, these having been taken since that
peace.
{2363}
But she retained Franche Comté, with the towns of
Valenciènnes, Bouchain, Condé, Cambrai and the Cambresis,
Aire, St. Omer, Ypres, Werwick, Warneton, Poperinge, Bailleul,
Cassel, Bavai, and Maubeuge. … On February 2, 1679, peace was
declared between Louis, the Emperor, and the Empire. Louis
gave back Philippsburg, retaining Freiburg with the desired
liberty of passage across the Rhine to Breisach; in all other
respects the Treaty of Munster, of October 24, 1648, was
reestablished. … The treaty then dealt with the Duke of
Lorraine. To his restitution Louis annexed conditions which
rendered Lorraine little more than a French province. Not only
was Nancy to become French, but, in conformity with the treaty
of 1661, Louis was to have possession of four large roads
traversing the country, with half a league's breadth of
territory throughout their length, and the places contained
therein. … To these conditions the Duke refused to subscribe,
preferring continual exile until the Peace of Ryswick in 1697,
when at length his son regained the ancestral estates."
Treaties between the Emperor and Sweden, between Brandenburg
and France and Sweden, between Denmark and the same, and
between Sweden, Spain and Holland, were successively concluded
during the year 1679. "The effect of the Peace of Nimwegen
was, … speaking generally, to reaffirm the Peace of
Westphalia. But … it did not, like the Peace of Westphalia,
close for any length of time the sources of strife."
_O. Airy,
The English Restoration and Louis XIV.,
chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Temple,
Memoirs,
part 2 (Works, volume 2)._
NINE WAYS, The.
See AMPHIPOLIS;
also, ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
NINETY-FIVE THESES OF LUTHER, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
NINETY-TWO, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
NINEVEH.
"In or about the year before Christ 606, Nineveh, the great
city, was destroyed. For many hundred years had she stood in
arrogant splendor, her palaces towering above the Tigris and
mirrored in its swift waters; army after army had gone forth
from her gates and returned laden with the spoils of conquered
countries; her monarchs had ridden to the high place of
sacrifice in chariots drawn by captive kings. But her time
came at last. The nations assembled and encompassed her around
[the Medes and the Babylonians, with their lesser allies].
Popular tradition tells how over two years lasted the siege;
how the very river rose and battered her walls; till one day a
vast flame rose up to heaven; how the last of a mighty line of
kings, too proud to surrender, thus saved himself, his
treasures and his, capital from the shame of bondage. Never
was city to rise again where Nineveh had been." The very
knowledge of the existence of Nineveh was lost so soon that,
two centuries later, when Xenophon passed the ruins, with his
Ten Thousand retreating Greeks, he reported them to be the
ruins of a deserted city of the Medes and called it Larissa.
Twenty-four centuries went by, and the winds and the rains, in
their slow fashion, covered the bricks and stones of the
desolated Assyrian capital with a shapeless mound of earth.
Then came the searching modern scholar and explorer, and began
to excavate the mound, to see what lay beneath it. First the
French Consul, Botta, in 1842; then the Englishman Layard, in
1845; then the later English scholar, George Smith, and
others; until buried Nineveh has been in great part brought to
light. Not only the imperishable monuments of its splendid art
have been exposed, but a veritable library of its literature,
written on tablets and cylinders of clay, has been found and
read. The discoveries of the past half-century, on the site of
Nineveh, under the mound called Koyunjik, and elsewhere in
other similarly-buried cities of ancient Babylonia and
Assyria, may reasonably be called the most extraordinary
additions to human knowledge which our age has acquired.
_Z. A. Ragozin,
Story of Chaldea,
introduction, chapters 1-4._
ALSO IN:
_A. H. Layard,
Nineveh and its Remains;
and Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon._
_G. Smith,
Assyrian Discoveries_
See, also, ASSYRIA;
and LIBRARIES, ANCIENT.
NINEVEH, Battle of (A.D. 627).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
NINFEO, Treaty of.
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
NINIQUIQUILAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
NIPAL
NEPAUL:
English war with the Ghorkas.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
NIPMUCKS,
NIPNETS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675,
and 1676-1678 KING PHILIP'S WAR.
NISÆAN PLAINS, The.
The famous horse-pastures of the ancient Medes. "Most probably
they are to be identified with the modern plains of Khawah and
Alishtar, between Behistun and Khorramabad, which are even now
considered to afford the best summer pasturage in Persia. …
The proper Nisæa is the district of Nishapur in Khorasan,
whence it is probable that the famous breed of horses was
originally brought."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1, with foot-note._
NISCHANDYIS.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
NISHAPOOR:
Destruction by the Mongols (1221).
See KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221.
NISIB, Battle of (1839).
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
NISIBIS, Sieges of (A. D. 338-350).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
NISIBIS, Theological School of.
See NESTORIANS.
----------NISMES: Start--------
NISMES:
Origin.
See VOLCÆ.
NISMES: A. D. 752-759.
Recovery from the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
----------NISMES: End--------
NISSA, Siege and battle (1689-1690).
See HUNGARY; A. D. 1683-1699.
NITIOBRIGES, The.
These were a tribe in ancient Gaul whose capital city was
Aginnum, the modern town of Agen on the Garonne.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 17._
NIVELLE, Battle of the (1813).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
NIVÔSE, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
NIZAM.
Nizam's dominions.
See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.
NIZZA.
See NICE.
NO.
NO AMON.
See THEBES, EGYPT.
NO MAN'S LAND, Africa.
See GRIQUAS.
{2364}
NO MAN'S LAND, England.
In the open or common field system which prevailed in early
England, the fields were divided into long, narrow strips,
wherever practicable. In some cases, "little odds and ends of
unused land remained, which from time immemorial were called
'no man's land,' or 'anyone's land,' or 'Jack's land,' as the
case might be."
_F. Seebohm,
English Village Community,
chapter 1._
NO POPERY RIOTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
NOBLES, Roman:
Origin of the term.
"When Livy in his first six books writes of the disputes
between the Patres or Patricians and the Plebs about the
Public Land, he sometimes designates the Patricians by the
name Nobiles, which we have in the form Nobles. A Nobilis is a
man who is known. A man who is not known is Ignobilis, a
nobody. In the later Republic a Plebeian who attained to a
curule office elevated his family to a rank of honour, to a
nobility, not acknowledged by any law, but by usage. … The
Patricians were a nobility of ancient date. … The Patrician
nobility was therefore independent of all office, but the new
Nobility and their Jus Imaginum originated in some Plebeian
who first of his family attained a curule office. … The true
conclusion is that Livy in his first six books uses the word
Nobiles improperly, for there is no evidence that this name
was given to the Patres before the consulship of L. Sextius."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 11._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 146.
NOËTIANS AND SABELLIANS.
"At the head of those in this century [the 3d] who explained
the scriptural doctrine of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit,
by the precepts of reason, stands Noëtus of Smyrna; a man
little known, but who is reported by the ancients to have been
cast out of the church by presbyters (of whom no account is
given), to have opened a school, and to have formed a sect. It
is stated that, being wholly unable to comprehend how that
God, who is so often in Scripture declared to be one and
undivided, can, at the same time, be manifold, Noëtus
concluded that the undivided Father of all things united
himself, with the man Christ, was born in him, and in him
suffered and died. On account of this doctrine his followers
were called Patripassians. … After the middle of this century,
Sabellius, an African bishop, or presbyter, of Ptolemais, the
capital of the Pentapolitan province of Libya Cyrenaica,
attempted to reconcile, in a manner somewhat different from
that of Noëtus, the scriptural doctrine of Father, Son, and
holy Spirit, with the doctrine of the unity of the divine
nature." Sabellius assumed "that only an energy or virtue,
emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a particle
of the person or nature of the Father, became united with the
man Christ. And such a virtue or particle of the Father, he
also supposed, constituted the holy Spirit."
_J. L. von Mosheim,
Historical Commentaries, 3d Century,
sections 32-33._
NÖFELS,
NAEFELS, Battle of (1388).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
NOLA, Battle of (B. C. 88).
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
NOMBRE DE DIOS:
Surprised and plundered by Drake (1572).
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
NOMEN,
COGNOMEN,
PRÆNOMEN.
See GENS.
NOMES.
A name given by the Greeks to the districts into which Egypt
was divided from very ancient times.
NOMOPHYLAKES.
In ancient Athens, under the constitution introduced by
Pericles, seven magistrates called Nomophylakes, or
"Law-Guardians," "sat alongside of the Proedri, or presidents,
both in the senate and in the public assembly, and were
charged with the duty of interposing whenever any step was
taken or any proposition made contrary to the existing laws.
They were also empowered to constrain the magistrates to act
according to law."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 46._
NOMOTHETÆ, The.
A legislative commission, elected and deputed by the general
assembly of the people, in ancient Athens, to amend existing
laws or enact new ones.
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
NONCONFORMISTS,
DISSENTERS, English:
First bodies organized.
Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.-
Removal of Disabilities.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
1711-1714; 1827-1828.
NONES.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
NONINTERCOURSE LAW OF 1809, The American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
NONJURORS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
NOOTKAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.
NOPH.
See MEMPHIS.
NÖRDLINGEN,
Siege and Battle (1634).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
Second Battle, or Battle of Allerheim (1645).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
NORE, Mutiny at the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
NOREMBEGA.
See NORUMBEGA.
----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: Start--------
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
Bombardment and destruction.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
Pillaged by British marauders.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Abandoned by the United States commandant.
Destruction of ships and property.
Possession taken by the Rebels.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (February).
Threatened by the Federal capture of Roanoke Island.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (May).
Evacuated by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA) EVACUATION OF NORFOLK.
----------NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: End--------
NORFOLK ISLAND PENAL COLONY.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
NORICUM.
See PANNONIA;
also, RHÆTIANS.
----------NORMANDY: Start--------
NORMANDY: A. D. 876-911.
Rollo's conquest and occupation.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: A. D. 876-911.
{2365}
NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
The solidifying of Rollo's duchy.
The Normans become French.
The first century which passed after the settlement of the
Northmen along the Seine saw "the steady growth of the duchy
in extent and power. Much of this was due to the ability of
its rulers, to the vigour and wisdom with which Hrolf forced
order and justice on the new community, as well as to the
political tact with which both Hrolf and William Longsword
[son and successor of Duke Rollo or Hrolf, A. D. 927-943]
clung to the Karolings in their strife with the dukes of
Paris. But still more was owing to the steadiness with which
both these rulers remained faithful to the Christianity which
had been imposed on the northmen as a condition of their
settlement, and to the firm resolve with which they trampled
down the temper and traditions which their people had brought
from their Scandinavian homeland, and welcomed the language
and civilization which came in the wake of their neighbours'
religion. The difficulties that met the dukes were indeed
enormous. … They were girt in by hostile states, they were
threatened at sea by England, under Æthelstan a network of
alliances menaced them with ruin. Once a French army occupied
Rouen, and a French king held the pirates' land at his will;
once the German lances were seen from the walls of their
capital. Nor were their difficulties within less than those
without. The subject population which had been trodden under
foot by the northern settlers were seething with discontent.
The policy of Christianization and civilization broke the
Normans themselves into two parties. … The very conquests of
Hrolf and his successor, the Bessin, the Cotentin, had to be
settled and held by the new comers, who made them strongholds
of heathendom. … But amidst difficulties from within and from
without the dukes held firm to their course, and their
stubborn will had its reward. … By the end of William
Longsword's days all Normandy, save the newly settled
districts of the west, was Christian, and spoke French. … The
work of the statesman at last completed the work of the sword.
As the connexion of the dukes with the Karoling kings had
given them the land, and helped them for fifty years to hold
it against the House of Paris, so in the downfall of the
Karolings the sudden and adroit change of front which bound
the Norman rulers to the House of Paris in its successful
struggle for the Crown secured the land for ever to the
northmen. The close connexion which France was forced to
maintain with the state whose support held the new royal line
on its throne told both on kingdom and duchy. The French dread
of the 'pirates' died gradually away, while French influence
spread yet more rapidly over a people which clung so closely
to the French crown."
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
chapter 8._
NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.
Duke William establishes his authority.
Duke Robert, of Normandy, who died in 1035, was succeeded by
his young son William, who bore in youth the opprobrious name
of "the Bastard," but who extinguished it in later life under
the proud appellation of "the Conqueror." By reason of his
bastardy he was not an acceptable successor, and, being yet a
boy, it seemed little likely that he would maintain himself on
the ducal throne. Normandy, for a dozen years, was given up to
lawless strife among its nobles. In 1047 a large part of the
duchy rose in revolt, against its objectionable young lord.
"It will be remembered that the western part of Normandy, the
lands of Bayeux and Coutances, were won by the Norman dukes
after the eastern part, the lands of Rouen and Evreux. And it
will be remembered that these western lands, won more lately,
and fed by new colonies from the North, were still heathen and
Danish some while after eastern Normandy had become Christian
and French-speaking. Now we may be sure that, long before
William's day, all Normandy was Christian, but it is quite
possible that the old tongue may have lingered on in the
western lands. At any rate there was a wide difference in
spirit and feeling between the more French and the more Danish
districts, to say nothing of Bayeux, where, before the Normans
came, there had been a Saxon settlement. One part of the duchy
in short was altogether Romance in speech and manners, while
more or less of Teutonic character still clave to the other.
So now Teutonic Normandy rose against Duke William, and
Romance Normandy was faithful to him. The nobles of the Bessin
and Cotentin made league with William's cousin Guy of
Burgundy, meaning, as far as one can see, to make Guy Duke of
Rouen and Evreux, and to have no lord at all for themselves. …
When the rebellion broke out, William was among them at
Valognes, and they tried to seize him. But his fool warned him
in the night; he rode for his life, and got safe to his own
Falaise. All eastern Normandy was loyal; but William doubted
whether he could by himself overcome so strong an array of
rebels. So he went to Poissy, between Rouen and Paris, and
asked his lord King Henry [of France] to help him. So King
Henry came with a French army; and the French and those whom
we may call the French Normans met the Teutonic Normans in
battle at Val-ès-dunes, not far from Caen. It was William's
first pitched battle," and he won a decisive victory. "He was
now fully master of his own duchy; and the battle of
Val-ès-dunes finally fixed that Normandy should take its
character from Romance Rouen and not from Teutonic Bayeux.
William had in short overcome Saxons and Danes in Gaul before
he came to overcome them in Britain. He had to conquer his own
Normandy before he could conquer England. … But before long
King Henry got jealous of William's power, and he was now
always ready to give help to any Norman rebels. … And the
other neighbouring princes were jealous of him as well as the
King. His neighbours in Britanny, Anjou, Chartres, and
Ponthieu, were all against him. But the great Duke was able to
hold his own against them all, and before long to make a great
addition to his dominions." Between 1053 and 1058 the French
King invaded Normandy three times and suffered defeat on every
occasion. In 1063 Duke William invaded the county of Maine,
and reduced it to entire submission. "From this time he ruled
over Maine as well as over Normandy," although its people were
often in revolt. "The conquest of Maine raised William's power
and fame to a higher pitch than it reached at any other time
before his conquest of England."
_E. A. Freeman,
Short History of the Norman Conquest,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest,
chapter 8._
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 2, chapter 4._
{2366}
NORMANDY: A. D. 1066.
Duke William becomes King of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.
NORMANDY: . D. 1087-1135.
Under Duke Robert and Henry Beauclerc.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
NORMANDY: A. D. 1096.
The Crusade of Duke Robert.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
NORMANDY: A. D. 1203-1205.
Wrested from England and restored to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.
NORMANDY: A. D. 1419.
Conquest by Henry V. of England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
NORMANDY: A. D. 1449.
Recovery from the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
NORMANDY: 16th Century.
Spread of the Reformation.
Strength of Protestantism.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
----------NORMANS: Start--------
NORMANS.
NORTH MEN:
Name and Origin.
"The northern pirates, variously called Danes or Normans,
according as they came from the islands of the Baltic Sea or
the coast of Norway, … descended from the same primitive race
with the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks; their language had roots
identical with the idioms of these two nations: but this token
of an ancient fraternity did not preserve from their hostile
incursions either Saxon Britain or Frankish Gaul, nor even the
territory beyond the Rhine, then exclusively inhabited by
Germanic tribes. The conversion of the southern Teutons to the
Christian faith had broken all bond of fraternity between them
and the Teutons of the north. In the 9th century the man of
the north still gloried in the title of son of Odin, and
treated as bastards and apostates the Germans who had become
children of the church. … A sort of religious and patriotic
fanaticism was thus combined in the Scandinavian with the
fiery impulsiveness of their character, and an insatiable
thirst for gain. They shed with joy the blood of the priests,
were especially delighted at pillaging the churches, and
stabled their horses in the chapels of the palaces. … In three
days, with an east wind, the fleets of Denmark and Norway,
two-sailed vessels, reached the south of Britain. The soldiers
of each fleet obeyed in general one chief, whose vessel was
distinguished from the rest by some particular ornament. … All
equal under such a chief, bearing lightly their voluntary
submission and the weight of their mailed armour, which they
promised themselves soon to exchange for an equal weight of
gold, the Danish pirates pursued the 'road of the swans,' as
their ancient national poetry expressed it. Sometimes they
coasted along the shore, and laid wait for the enemy in the
straits, the bays, and smaller anchorages, which procured them
the surname of Vikings, or 'children of the creeks'; sometimes
they dashed in pursuit of their prey across the ocean."
_A. Thierry,
Conquest of England by the Normans,
book 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
The Early Kings of Norway._
NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
The Vikings and what sent them to sea.
"No race of the ancient or modern world have ever taken to the
sea with such heartiness as the Northmen. The great cause
which filled the waters of Western Europe with their barks was
that consolidation and centralization of the kingly power all
over Europe which followed after the days of Charlemagne, and
which put a stop to those great invasions and migrations by
land which had lasted for centuries. Before that time the
north and east of Europe, pressed from behind by other
nationalities, and growing straitened within their own bounds,
threw off from time to time bands of emigrants which gathered
force as they slowly marched along, until they appeared in the
west as a fresh wave of the barbarian flood. As soon as the
west, recruited from the very source whence the invaders came,
had gained strength enough to set them at defiance, which
happened in the time of Charlemagne, these invasions by land
ceased after a series of bloody defeats, and the north had to
look for another outlet for the force which it was unable to
support at home. Nor was the north itself slow to follow
Charlemagne's example. Harold Fairhair, no inapt disciple of
the great emperor, subdued the petty kings in Norway one after
another, and made himself supreme king. At the same time he
invaded the rights of the old freeman, and by taxes and tolls
laid on his allodial holding drove him into exile. We have
thus the old outlet cut off and a new cause for emigration
added. No doubt the Northmen even then had long been used to
struggle with the sea, and sea-roving was the calling of the
brave, but the two causes we have named gave it a great
impulse just at the beginning of the tenth century, and many a
freeman who would have joined the host of some famous leader
by land, or have lived on a little king at home, now sought
the waves as a birthright of which no king could rob him.
Either alone, or as the follower of some sea-king, whose realm
was the sea's wide wastes, he went out year after year, and
thus won fame and wealth. The name given to this pursuit was
Viking, a word which is in no way akin to king. It is derived
from 'Vik,' a bay or creek, because these sea-rovers lay
moored in bays and creeks on the look-out for merchant ships;
the 'ing' is a well known ending, meaning, in this case,
occupation or calling. Such a sea-rover was called 'Vikingr,'
and at one time or another in his life almost every man of
note in the North had taken to the sea and lived a Viking
life."
_G. W. Dasent,
Story of Burnt Njal,
volume 2, appendix._
"Western viking expeditions have hitherto been ascribed to
Danes and Norwegians exclusively. Renewed investigations
reveal, however, that Swedes shared widely in these
achievements, notably in the acquisition of England, and that,
among other famous conquerors, Rolf, the founder of the
Anglo-Norman dynasty, issued from their country. … Norwegians,
like Swedes, were, in truth, merged in the terms Northmen and
Danes, both of which were general to all Scandinavians abroad.
… The curlier conversion of the Danes to Christianity and
their more immediate contact with Germany account for the
frequent application of their name to all Scandinavians."
_W. Roos,
The Swedish Part in the Viking Expeditions
(English History Review, April, 1892)._
ALSO IN:
_S. Laing,
Preliminary Dissertation to Heimskringla._
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings of Western Christendom,
chapter 5._
_P. B. Du Chaillu,
The Viking Age._
See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
{2367}
NORMANS: 8-9th Centuries.
The island empire of the Vikings.
We have hitherto treated the Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes
under the common appellation of Northmen; and this is in many
ways the most convenient, for it is often impossible to decide
the nationality of the individual settlement. Indeed, it would
appear probable that the devastating bands were often composed
indiscriminately of the several nationalities. Still, in
tracing the history of their conquests, we may lay it down as
a general rule that England was the exclusive prey of the
Danes; that Scotland and the islands to the north as far as
Iceland, and to the south as far as Anglesea and Ireland, fell
to the Norwegians, and Russia to the Swedes; while Gaul and
Germany were equally the spoil of the Norwegians and the
Danes. … While England had been overcome by the Danes, the
Norwegians had turned their attention chiefly to the north of
the British Isles and the islands of the West. Their
settlements naturally fell into three divisions, which tally
with their geographical position.
1. The Orkneys and Shetlands, lying to the N. E. of Scotland.
2. The isles to the west as far south as Ireland.
3. Iceland and the Faroe Isles.
The Orkneys and Shetlands: Here the Northmen first appear as
early as the end of the 8th century, and a few peaceful
settlements were made by those who were anxious to escape from
the noisy scenes which distracted their northern country. In
the reign of Harald Harfagr [the Fairhaired] they assumed new
importance, and their character is changed. Many of those
driven out by Harald sought a refuge here, and betaking
themselves to piracy periodically infested the Norwegian coast
in revenge for their defeat and expulsion. These ravages
seriously disturbing the peace of his newly acquired kingdom,
Harald fitted out an expedition and devoted a whole summer to
conquering the Vikings and extirpating the brood of pirates.
The country being gained, he offered it to his chief adviser,
Rögnwald, Jarl of Möri in Norway, father of Rollo of Normandy,
who, though refusing to go himself, held it during his life as
a family possession, and sent Sigurd, his brother, there. …
Rögnwald next sent his son Einar, and from his time [A. D.
875] we may date the final establishment of the Jarls of
Orkney, who henceforth owe a nominal allegiance to the King of
Norway. … The close of the 8th century also saw the
commencement of the incursions of the Northmen in the west of
Scotland, and the Western Isles soon became a favourite resort
of the Vikings. In the Keltic annals these unwelcome visitors
had gained the name of Fingall, 'the white strangers,' from
the fairness of their complexion; and Dugall, the black
strangers, probably from the iron coats of mail worn by their
chiefs. … By the end of the 9th century a sort of naval empire
had arisen, consisting of the Hebrides, parts of the western
coasts of Scotland, especially the modern Argyllshire, Man,
Anglesea, and the eastern shores of Ireland. This empire was
under a line of sovereigns who called themselves the Hy-Ivar
(grandsons of Ivar), and lived now in Man, now in Dublin.
Thence they often joined their kinsmen in their attacks on
England, and at times aspired to the position of Jarls of the
Danish Northumbria."
_A. H. Johnson,
The Normans in Europe,
chapter 2._
"Under the government of these Norwegian princes [the Hy Ivar]
the Isles appear to have been very flourishing. They were
crowded with people; the arts were cultivated, and
manufactures were carried to a degree of perfection which was
then thought excellence. This comparatively advanced state of
society in these remote isles may be ascribed partly to the
influence and instructions of the Irish clergy, who were
established all over the island before the arrival of the
Norwegians, and possessed as much learning as was in those
ages to be found in any part of Europe, except Constantinople
and Rome; and partly to the arrival of great numbers of the
provincial Britons flying to them as an asylum when their
country was ravaged by the Saxons, and carrying with them the
remains of the science, manufactures, and wealth introduced
among them by their Roman masters. Neither were the Norwegians
themselves in those ages destitute of a considerable portion
of learning and of skill in the useful arts, in navigation,
fisheries, and manufactures; nor were they in any respect such
barbarians as those who know them only by the declamations of
the early English writers may be apt to suppose them. The
principal source of their wealth was piracy, then esteemed an
honourable profession, in the exercise of which these
islanders laid all the maritime countries of the west part of
Europe under heavy contributions."
_D. Macpherson,
Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History
(Quoted by J. H. Burton, History of Scotland,
chapter 15, volume 2, foot-note)._
See, also,
IRELAND: 9-10TH CENTURIES.
NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.
The so-called Danish invasions and settlements in England.
"In our own English chronicles, 'Dena' or Dane is used as the
common term for all the Scandinavian invaders of Britain,
though not including the Swedes, who took no part in the
attack, while Northman generally means 'man of Norway.' Asser
however uses the words as synonymous, 'Nordmanni sive Dani.'
Across the channel 'Northman' was the general name for the
pirates, and 'Dane' would usually mean a pirate from Denmark.
The distinction however is partly a chronological one; as,
owing to the late appearance of the Danes in the middle of the
ninth century, and the prominent part they then took in the
general Wiking movement, their name tended from that time to
narrow the area of the earlier term of 'Nordmanni.'"
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
page 68, foot-note._
Prof. Freeman divides the Danish invasions of England into
three periods:
1. The period of merely plundering incursions, which
began A. D. 787.
2. The period of actual occupation and settlement, from 866 to
the Peace of Wedmore, 880.
3. The later period of conquest, within which England was
governed by Danish kings, A. D. 980-1042.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
ALSO IN:
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapters 6 and 12._
NORMANS: A. D. 841.
First expedition up the Seine.
In May, A. D. 841, the Seine was entered for the first time by
a fleet of Norse pirates, whose depredations in France had
been previously confined to the coasts. The expedition was
commanded by a chief named Osker, whose plans appear to have
been well laid. He led his pirates straight to the rich city
of Rouen, never suffering them to slacken oar or sail, or to
touch the tempting country through which they passed, until
the great prize was struck. "The city was fired and plundered.
Defence was wholly impracticable, and great slaughter ensued.
… Osker's three days' occupation of Rouen was remuneratingly
successful.
{2368}
Their vessels loaded with spoil and captives, gentle and
simple, clerks, merchants, citizens, soldiers, peasants, nuns,
dames, damsels, the Danes dropped down the Seine, to complete
their devastation on the shores. … The Danes then quitted the
Seine; having formed their plans for renewing the encouraging
enterprize,—another time they would do more. Normandy dates
from Osker's three days' occupation Of Rouen."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapter 9._
NORMANS: A. D. 845-861.
Repeated ravages in the Seine.
Paris thrice sacked.
See PARIS; A. D. 845; and 857-861.
NORMANS: A. D. 849-860.
The career of Hasting.
"About the year of Alfred's birth [849] they laid siege to
Tours, from which they were repulsed by the gallantry of the
citizens, assisted by the miraculous aid of Saint Martin. It
is at this siege that Hasting first appears as a leader. His
birth is uncertain. In some accounts he is said to have been
the son of a peasant of Troyes, the capital of Champagne, and
to have forsworn his faith, and joined the Danes in his early
youth, from an inherent lust of battle and plunder. In others
he is called the son of the jarl Atte. But, whatever his
origin, by the middle of the century he had established his
title to lead the Northern hordes in those fierce forays which
helped to shatter the Carlovingian Empire to fragments. … When
the land was bare, leaving the despoiled provinces he again
put to sea, and, sailing southwards still, pushed up the Tagus
and Guadalquiver, and ravaged the neighbourhoods of Lisbon and
Seville. But no settlement in Spain was possible at this time.
The Peninsula had lately had for Caliph Abdalrahman the
Second, called El Mouzaffer, 'The Victorious,' and the vigour
of his rule had made the Arabian kingdom in Spain the most
efficient power for defence in Europe. Hasting soon recoiled
from the Spanish coasts, and returned to his old haunts. The
leaders of the Danes in England, the Sidrocs and Hinguar and
Hubba, had, as we have seen, a special delight in the
destruction of churches and monasteries, mingling a fierce
religious fanaticism with their thirst for battle and plunder.
This exceeding bitterness of the Northmen may be fairly laid
in great measure to the account of the thirty years of
proselytising warfare, which Charlemagne had waged in Saxony,
and along all the northern frontier of his empire. … Hasting
seems to have been filled with a double portion of this
spirit, which he had indulged throughout his career in the
most inveterate hatred to priests and holy places. It was
probably this, coupled with a certain weariness—commonplace
murder and sacrilege having grown tame, and lost their
charm—which incited him to the most daring of all his
exploits, a direct attack on the head of Christendom, and the
sacred city. Hasting then, about the year 860, planned an
attack on Rome, and the proposal was well received by his
followers. Sailing again round Spain, and pillaging on their
way both on the Spanish and Moorish coasts, they entered the
Mediterranean, and, steering for Italy, landed in the bay of
Spezzia, near the town of Luna. Luna was the place where the
great quarries of the Carrara marble had been worked ever
since the times of the Cæsars. The city itself was, it is
said, in great part built of white marble, and the 'candentia
mœnia Lunæ' deceived Hasting into the belief that he was
actually before Rome; so he sat down before the town which he
had failed to surprise. The hope of taking it by assault was
soon abandoned, but Hasting obtained his end by guile. … The
priests were massacred, the gates thrown open, and the city
taken and spoiled. Luna never recovered its old prosperity
after the raid of the Northmen, and in Dante's time had fallen
into utter decay. But Hasting's career in Italy ended with the
sack of Luna; and, giving up all hope of attacking Rome, he
re-embarked with the spoil of the town, the most beautiful of
the women, and all the youths who could be used as soldiers or
rowers. His fleet was, wrecked on the south coasts of France
on its return westward, and all the spoil lost; but the devil
had work yet for Hasting and his men, who got ashore in
sufficient numbers to recompense themselves for their losses
by the plunder of Provence."
_T. Hughes,
Alfred the Great,
chapter 20._
NORMANS: A. D. 860-1100.
The discovery and settlement of Iceland.
Development of the Saga literature.
The discovery of Iceland is attributed to a famous Norse
Viking named Naddodd, and dated in 860, at the beginning of
the reign, in Norway, of Harald Haarfager, who drove out so
many adventurers, to seek fortune on the seas. He is said to
have called it Snowland; but others who came to the cold
island in 870 gave it the harsher name which it still bears.
"Within sixty years after the first settlement by the Northmen
the whole was inhabited; and, writes Uno Von Troil (p. 64),
'King Harold, who did not contribute a little towards it by
his tyrannical treatment of the petty kings and lords in
Norway, was obliged at last to issue an order, that no one
should sail to Iceland without paying four ounces of fine
silver to the Crown, in order to stop those continual
emigrations which weakened his kingdom.' … Before the tenth
century had reached its half-way period, the Norwegians had
fully peopled the island with not less, perhaps, than 50,000
souls. A census taken about A. D. 1100 numbered the franklins
who had to pay Thing-tax at 4,500, without including cotters
and proletarians."
_R. F. Burton,
Ultima Thule, introduction,
section 3 (volume 1)._
"About sixty years after the first settlement of the island, a
step was taken towards turning Iceland into a commonwealth,
and giving the whole island a legal constitution; and though
we are ignorant of the immediate cause which led to this, we
know enough of the state of things in the island to feel sure,
that it could only have been with the common consent of the
great chiefs, who, as Priests, presided over the various local
Things.
See THING.
The first, want was a man who could make a code of laws." The
man was found in one Ulfljót, who came from a Norwegian family
long famous for knowledge of the customary law, and who was
sent to the mother country to consult the wisest of his kin.
"Three years he stayed abroad; and when he returned, the
chiefs, who, no doubt, day by day felt more strongly the need
of a common centre of action as well as of a common code, lost
no time in carrying out their scheme. … The time of the annual
meeting was fixed at first for the middle of the month of June,
but in the year 999 it was agreed to meet a week later, and
the Althing then met when ten full weeks of summer had passed.
{2369}
It lasted fourteen days. … In its legal capacity it [the
Althing] was both a deliberative and executive assembly; both
Parliament and High Court of Justice in one. … With the
establishment of the Althing we have for the first time a
Commonwealth in Iceland."
_G. W. Dasent,
The Story of Burnt Njal,
introduction (volume 1)._
"The reason why Iceland, which was destitute of inhabitants at
the time of its discovery, about the middle of the 9th
century, became so rapidly settled and secured so eminent a
position in the world's history and literature, must be sought
in the events which took place in Norway at the time when
Harald Hárfragi (Fairhair), after a long and obstinate
resistance, succeeded in usurping the monarchical power. … The
people who emigrated to Iceland were for the most part the
flower of the nation. They went especially from the west coast
of Norway, where the peculiar Norse spirit had been most
perfectly developed. Men of the noblest birth in Norway set
out with their families and followers to find a home where
they might be as free and independent as their fathers had
been before them. No wonder then that they took with them the
cream of the ancient culture of the fatherland. … Toward the
end of the 11th century it is expressly stated that many of
the chiefs were so learned that they with perfect propriety
might have been ordained to the priesthood [Christianity
having been formally adopted by the Althing in the year 1000],
and in the 12th century there were, in addition to those to be
found in the cloisters, several private libraries in the
island. On the other hand, secular culture, knowledge of law
and history, and of the skaldic art, were, so to speak, common
property. And thus, when the means for committing a literature
to writing were at hand, the highly developed popular taste
for history gave the literature the direction which it
afterward maintained. The fact is, there really existed a
whole literature which was merely waiting to be put in
writing. … Many causes contributed toward making the
Icelanders preeminently a historical people. The settlers were
men of noble birth, who were proud to trace their descent from
kings and heroes of antiquity, nay, even from the gods
themselves, and we do not therefore wonder that they
assiduously preserved the memory of the deeds of their
forefathers. But in their minds was developed not only a taste
for the sagas of the past; the present also received its full
share of attention. … Nor did they interest themselves for and
remember the events that took place in Iceland only. Reports
from foreign lands also found a most hearty welcome, and the
Icelanders had abundant opportunity of satisfying their thirst
for knowledge in this direction. As vikings, as merchants, as
courtiers and especially as skalds accompanying kings and
other distinguished persons, and also as varangians in
Constantinople, many of them found splendid opportunities of
visiting foreign countries. … Such were then the conditions
and circumstances which produced that remarkable development
of the historical taste with which the people were endowed,
and made Iceland the home of the saga."
_F. W. Horn,
History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
part 1, chapter 1._
"The Icelanders, in their long winter, had a great habit of
writing, and were, and still are, excellent in penmanship,
says Dahlmann. It is to this fact that any little history
there is of the Norse Kings and their old tragedies, crimes,
and heroisms, is almost all due. The Icelanders, it seems, not
only made beautiful letters on their paper or parchment, but
were laudably observant and desirous of accuracy; and have
left us such a collection of narratives (Sagas, literally
'Says') as, for quantity and quality, is unexampled among rude
nations."
_T. Carlyle,
Early Kings of Norway,
Preface._
See, also,
THINGS.
THINGVALLA.
NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
Rollo's acquisition of Normandy.
"One alone among the Scandinavian settlements in Gaul was
destined to play a real part in history. This was the
settlement of Rolf or Rollo at Rouen. [The genuine name is
Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The French form is Rou,
sometimes Rous …; the Latin is Rollo.—Foot-note.] This
settlement, the kernel of the great Norman Duchy, had, I need
hardly say, results of its own and an importance of its own,
which distinguish it from every other Danish colony in Gaul.
But it is well to bear in mind that it was only one colony
among several, and that, when the cession was made, it was
probably not expected to be more lasting or more important
than the others. But, while the others soon lost any
distinctive character, the Rouen settlement lasted, it grew,
it became a power in Europe, and in Gaul it became even a
determining power. … The lasting character of his work at once
proves that the founder of the Rouen colony was a great man,
but he is a great man who must be content to be judged in the
main by the results of his actions. The authentic history of
Rolf, Rollo, or Rou, may be summed up in a very short space.
We have no really contemporary narrative of his actions,
unless a few meagre and uncertain entries in some of the
Frankish annals may be thought to deserve that name. … I
therefore do not feel myself at all called upon to narrate in
detail the exploits which are attributed to Rolf in the time
before his final settlement. He is described as having been
engaged in the calling of a Wiking both in Gaul and in Britain
for nearly forty years before his final occupation of Rouen. …
The exploits attributed to Rolf are spread over so many years,
that we cannot help suspecting that the deeds of other
chieftains have been attributed to him, perhaps that two
leaders of the same name have been confounded. Among countless
expeditions in Gaul, England, and Germany, we find Rolf
charged with an earlier visit to Rouen [A. D. 876], with a
share in the great siege of Paris [A. D. 885], and with an
occupation or destruction of Bayeux. But it is not till we
have got some way into the reign of Charles the Simple, not
till we have passed several years of the tenth century, that
Rolf begins clearly to stand out as a personal historic
reality. He now appears in possession of Rouen, or of whatever
vestiges of the city had survived his former ravages, and from
that starting-point he assaulted Chartres. Beneath the walls
of that city he underwent a defeat [A. D. 911] at the hands of
the Dukes Rudolf of Burgundy and Robert of Paris, which was
attributed to the miraculous powers of the great local relic,
the under-garment of the Virgin.
{2370}
But this victory, like most victories over the Northmen, had
no lasting effect. Rolf was not dislodged from Rouen, nor was
his career of devastation and conquest at all seriously
checked. But, precisely as in the case of Guthrum in England,
his evident disposition to settle in the country suggested an
attempt to change him from a devastating enemy into a
peaceable neighbour. The Peace of Clair-on-Epte [A. D. 911]
was the duplicate of the Peace of Wedmore, and King Charles
and Duke Robert of Paris most likely had the Peace of Wedmore
before their eyes. A definite district was ceded to Rolf, for
which he became the King's vassal; he was admitted to baptism
and received the king's natural daughter in marriage. And,
just as in the English case, the territory ceded was not part
of the King's immediate dominions. … The grant to Rolf was
made at the cost not of the Frankish King at Laon but of the
French Duke at Paris. The district ceded to Rolf was part of
the great Neustrian March or Duchy which had been granted to
Odo [or Eudes] of Paris and which was now held by his brother
Duke Robert. … It must not be thought that the district now
ceded to Rolf took in the whole of the later Duchy of
Normandy. Rouen was the heart of the new state, which took in
lands on both sides of the Seine. From the Epte to the sea was
its undoubted extent from the south-east to the north. But the
western frontier is much less clearly defined. On the one
hand, the Normans always claimed a certain not very well
defined superiority over Britanny as part of the original
grant. On the other hand, it is quite certain that Rolf did
not obtain immediate possession of what was afterwards the
noblest portion of the heritage of his descendants. The
Bessin, the district of Bayeux, was not won till several years
later, and the Côtentin, the peninsula of Coutances, was not
won till after the death of Rolf. The district granted to Rolf
… had—sharing therein the fate of Germany and France—no
recognized geographical name. Its inhabitants were the
Northmen, the Northmen of the Seine, the Northmen of Rouen.
The land itself was, till near the end of the century, simply
the Land of the Northmen"—the Terra Northmannorum.
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapters 3-5._
_A. Thierry,
Norman Conquest of England,
book 2._
See, also,
FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.
NORMANS: A. D. 876-984.
Discovery and settlement of Greenland.
"The discovery of Greenland was a natural consequence of the
settlement of Iceland, just as the discovery of America
afterward was a natural consequence of the settlement of
Greenland. Between the western part of Iceland and the eastern
part of Greenland there is a distance of only 45 geographical
miles. Hence, some of the ships that sailed to Iceland, at the
time of the settlement of this island and later, could in case
of a violent east wind, which is no rare occurrence in those
regions, scarcely avoid approaching the coast of Greenland
sufficiently to catch a glimpse of its jokuls,—nay, even to
land on its islands and promontories. Thus it is said that
Gunnbjorn, Ulf Krage's son, saw land lying in the ocean at the
west of Iceland, when, in the year 876, he was driven out to
the sea by a storm. Similar reports were heard, from time to
time, by other mariners. About a century later a certain man,
by name Erik the Red, … resolved to go in search of the land
in the west that Gunnbjorn and others had seen. He set sail in
the year 984, and found the land as he had expected, and
remained there exploring the country for two years. At the end
of this period he returned to Iceland, giving the
newly-discovered country the name of Greenland, in order, as
he said, to attract settlers, who would be favorably impressed
with so pleasing a name. The result was that many Icelanders
and Norsemen emigrated to Greenland, and a flourishing colony
was established, with Gardar for its capital city, which, in
the year 1261, became subject to the crown of Norway. The
Greenland colony maintained its connection with the mother
countries for a period of no less than 400 years: yet it
finally disappeared, and was almost forgotten. Torfæus gives a
list of seventeen bishops who ruled in Greenland."
_R. B. Anderson,
America not Discovered by Columbus,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_D. Crantz,
History of Greenland,
book 4, chapter 1._
NORMANS: A. D. 885-886.
The Great Siege of Paris.
See PARIS: A. D. 885-886.
NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
The Danish conquests and settlements in Ireland.
See IRELAND: 9-10th CENTURIES and A. D. 1014.
NORMANS: 9-10th Centuries.
The ravages of the Vikings on the Continent.
"Take the map and colour with vermilion the provinces,
districts and shores which the Northmen visited. The colouring
will have to be repeated more than ninety times successively
before you arrive at the conclusion of the Carlovingian
dynasty. Furthermore, mark by the usual symbol of war, two
crossed swords, the localities where battles were fought by or
against the pirates: where they were defeated or triumphant,
or where they pillaged, burned or destroyed; and the valleys
and banks of Elbe, Rhine and Moselle, Scheldt, Meuse, Somme
and Seine, Loire, Garonne and Adour, the inland Allier, and
all the coasts and coast-lands between estuary and estuary and
the countries between the river-streams, will appear bristling
as with chevaux-de-frise. The strongly-fenced Roman cities,
the venerated Abbeys and their dependent bourgades, often more
flourishing and extensive than the ancient seats of
government, the opulent seaports and trading towns, were all
equally exposed to the Danish attacks, stunned by the
Northmen's approach, subjugated by their fury. … They
constitute three principal schemes of naval and military
operations, respectively governed and guided by the great
rivers and the intervening sea-shores. … The first scheme of
operations includes the territories between Rhine and Scheldt,
and Scheldt and Elbe: the furthest southern point reached by
the Northmen in this direction was somewhere between the Rhine
and the Neckar. Eastward, the Scandinavians scattered as far
as Russia; but we must not follow them there. The second
scheme of operations affected the countries between Seine and
Loire, and again from the Seine eastward towards the Somme and
Oise. These operations were connected with those of the Rhine
Northmen. The third scheme of operations was prosecuted in the
countries between Loire and Garonne, and Garonne and Adour,
frequently flashing towards Spain, and expanding inland as far
as the Allier and central France, nay, to the very centre, to
Bourges."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
{2371}
ALSO IN:
_C. F. Keary,
The Vikings in Western Christendom,
chapters 9-15._
NORMANS: A. D. 979-1016.
The Danish conquest of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
NORMANS: A. D. 986-1011.
Supposed voyages to America.
See AMERICA: 10-11th CENTURIES.
NORMANS: 10-13th Centuries.
The breaking up of the Norse island empire.
"At the close of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century
the battles of Tara and Clontarf overthrew the power of these
Norsemen (or Ostmen as they were called) in Ireland, and
restored the authority of the native Irish sovereign. About
this time they [the 'Hy-Ivar,' or sovereigns of the
island-empire of the Northmen—see above: 8-9TH CENTURIES]
became Christians, and in the year 1066 we find one of their
princes joining Harald Hardrada of Norway in his invasion of
England, which ended so disastrously in the battle of Stamford
Bridge. Magnus of Norway, thirty-two years later, after
subduing the independent Jarls of Shetland and the Orkneys,
attempted to reassert his supremacy along the western coast.
But after conquering Anglesea, whence he drove out the Normans
[from England] who had just made a settlement there, he
crossed to Ireland to meet his death in battle. The
sovereignty of the Isles was then restored to its original
owners, but soon after split into two parts—the Suderies and
Norderies (whence the term Sodor and Man), north and south of
Ardnamurchan Point. The next glimpse we have of these
dominions is at the close of the 12th century, when we find
them under a chief named Somarled, who exercised authority in
the islands and Argyleshire, and from him the clans of the
Highlands and the Western Isles love to trace their ancestry.
After his death, according to the Highland traditions, the
islands and Argyleshire were divided amongst his three sons.
Thus the old Norse empire was finally broken up, and in the
13th century, after another unsuccessful attempt by Haco, King
of Norway, to re-establish the authority of the mother kingdom
over their distant possessions, an attempt which ended in his
defeat at the battle of Largs by the Scottish king, Alexander
III., they were ceded to the Scottish kings by Magnus IV., his
son, and an alliance was cemented between the two kingdoms by
the marriage of Alexander's daughter, Margaret, to Eric of
Norway." At the north of Scotland the Jarls of Orkney, in the
11th century, "conquered Caithness and Sutherland, and wrested
a recognition of their claim from Malcolm II. of Scotland.
Their influence was continually felt in the dynastic and other
quarrels of Scotland; the defeat of Duncan, in 1040, by the
Jarl of Orkney, contributing not a little to Duncan's
subsequent overthrow by Macbeth. They fostered the
independence of the north of Scotland against the southern
king, and held their kingdom until, in 1355, it passed by the
female line to the house of Sinclair. The Sinclairs now
transferred their allegiance to their natural master, the King
of Scotland; and finally the kingdom of the Orkneys was handed
over to James III. as the dowry of his bride, Margaret of
Norway."
_A. H. Johnson,
The Normans in Europe,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
See, also, IRELAND: A. D. 1014.
NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1063.
The Northmen in France become French.
See NORMANDY; A. D. 911-1000; and 1035-1063.
NORMANS: A. D. 1000-1194.
Conquests and settlement in Southern Italy and Sicily.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090;
and 1081-1194.
NORMANS: A. D. 1016-1042.
The reign of the Danish kings in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
NORMANS: A. D. 1066-1071.
Conquest of England by Duke William of Normandy.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066; 1066; and 1066-1071.
NORMANS: A. D. 1081-1085.
Attempted conquest of the Byzantine Empire.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
NORMANS: A. D. 1084.
The sack and burning of Rome.
See ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
NORMANS: A. D. 1146.
Ravages in Greece.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
NORMANS: A. D. 1504.
Early enterprise on the Newfoundland fishing banks.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.
----------NORMANS: End--------
NORTH, Lord, Administration of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1770, to 1782-1783.
NORTH ANNA, The passage of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
NORTH BRITON, Number 45, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
----------NORTH CAROLINA: Start--------
NORTH CAROLINA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES,
IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
SHAWANESE, and TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1524.
Discovery of the coast by Verrazano.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1585-1587.
Raleigh's attempted settlements at Roanoke.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
The grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1639-1663.
Pioneer and unorganized colonization.
"An abortive attempt at colonization was made in 1639, and a
titular governor appeared in Virginia; but this, and a number
of conflicting claims originating in this patent [to Sir
Robert Heath], and sufficiently troublesome to the
proprietaries of a later time, were the only results of the
grant of Charles I. This action on the part of the Crown, and
the official information received, did not, however, suffice
to prevent the Virginia Assembly lending itself to a scheme by
which possession might be obtained of the neighboring
territory, or at least substantial benefits realized therefrom
by their constituents. With this object, they made grants to a
trading company, which led, however, only to exploration and
traffic. Other grants of a similar nature followed for the
next ten years, at the expiration of which a company of
Virginians made their way from Nansemond to Albemarle, and
established a settlement there. The Virginian Burgesses
granted them lands, and promised further grants to all who
would extend these settlements to the southward. Emigration
from Virginia began. Settlers, singly and in companies,
crossed the border, and made scattered and solitary clearings
within the wilds of North Carolina. Many of these people were
mere adventurers; but some of them were of more substantial
stuff, and founded permanent settlements on the Chowan and
elsewhere. Other eyes, however, as watchful as those of the
Virginians, were also turned to the rich regions of the South.
{2372}
New England enterprise explored the American coast from one
end to the other, in search of lucrative trade and new
resting-places. After a long acquaintance with the North
Carolina coast, they bought land of the Indians, near the
mouth of Cape Fear River, and settled there. For some
unexplained cause—possibly on account of the wild and
dangerous character of the scattered inhabitants, who had
already drifted thither from Virginia, possibly from the
reason which they themselves gave—the New England colonists
abandoned their settlement and departed, leaving a written
opinion of the poor character of the country expressed in very
plain language and pinned to a post. Here it was found by some
wanderers from Barbadoes, who were of a different opinion from
the New Englanders as to the appearance of things; and they
accordingly repurchased the land from the Indians and began a
settlement. At this date [1663], therefore, there was in North
Carolina this infant settlement of the Barbadoes men, on the
extreme southeastern point of the present State, and in the
north-eastern corner the Virginia settlers scattered about,
with here a solitary plantation and there a little group of
farms, and always a restless van of adventurers working their
way down the coast and into the interior. … Whatever rights
the North Carolina settlers may have had in the eyes of the
Virginians, who had granted them land, or in those of the
Indians who had sold it, they had none recognized by the
English King, who claimed to own all that vast region. It may
be doubted whether anything was known of these early colonists
in England; and their existence was certainly not regarded in
the least when Charles II. lavished their territory, and much
besides, upon a band of his courtiers and ministers."
_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. W. Moore,
History of North Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 2._
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury and others.
The organized colonies.
"On the 24th March, 1663, King Charles II. granted to Edward,
Earl of Clarendon; George [Monk], Duke of Albemarle; William,
Earl of Craven; John, Lord Berkeley; Anthony, Lord Ashley
[Earl of Shaftesbury]; Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton,
and Sir William Berkeley, all the country between the Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans, between 31° and 36° parallels of
latitude, called Carolina, in honor of Charles. [The grant
embraced the present States of Georgia, Alabama and
Mississippi, as well as the two Carolinas.] In 1663, Sir
William Berkeley, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, visited
the province, and appointed William Drummond Governor of the
Colony of Carolina. … Drummond, at his death in 1667, was
succeeded by Stevens as governor. … The first assembly that
made laws for Carolina, assembled in the fall of 1669. … A
form of government, magnificent in design, and labored in
detail, called 'The fundamental constitutions of Carolina,'
were drawn up by the celebrated author of the Essay on the
Human Understanding, John Locke. … On the death of Governor
Stevens, who died in the colony full of years and wealth, the
assembly chose Carteret for their governor, and on his return
to England soon after, Eastchurch, who then was in Eng]and,
was appointed governor, and Miller secretary."
_J. H. Wheeler,
Historical Sketches of North Carolina,
chapter 4._
"The earliest grant made to the lords proprietors did not
include the whole of the present State of North Carolina. Its
northern line fell short of the southern boundary of Virginia
by half a degree of latitude. Notwithstanding this, an
unwarranted exhibition of authority established virtually the
proprietary dominion over this unappropriated territory. …
Colonel Byrd of Virginia, who was born not long after the
charter of 1665 was made, and who lived during the
administration of Berkeley, states, and no doubt truly, that
'Sir William Berkeley, who was one of the grantees, and at
that time governor of Virginia, finding a territory of 31
miles in breadth between the inhabited part of Virginia and
the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina [36°], advised the
Lord Clarendon of it. And his lordship had interest enough
with the king to obtain a second patent to include it, dated
June 30th, 1665.' By this patent very large powers were
granted; so large that, as Chalmers has remarked, 'no one
prerogative of the crown was preserved, except only the
sovereign dominion. … The existence of the colony from
Barbadoes, under Sir John Yeamans, that settled in the old
county of Clarendon, from its inception in 1665 to its
abandonment in 1690, forms but an episode in the proprietary
history of North Carolina. The colony, like all others
similarly situated, sought at first to make provision for the
supply of bodily wants, in securing food and shelter only; but
having done this it next proceeded to make profitable the
gifts of Heaven that were around it. Yeamans had brought with
him negro slaves from Barbadoes, and so inviting was the new
settlement deemed, that in the second year of its existence it
contained 800 inhabitants. … But with all this prosperity, the
colony on the Cape Fear was not destined to be permanent. The
action of the lords proprietors themselves caused its
abandonment. … In 1670, the lords proprietors, who seem to
have been anxious to proceed more and more to the southward,
sent out a considerable number of emigrants to form a colony
at Port Royal, now Beaufort, in the present State of South
Carolina. The individual who led the expedition was William
Sayle, 'a man of experience,' says Chalmers, 'who had been
appointed governor of that part of the coast lying
southwestward of Cape Carteret.' … Scarcely however, had Sayle
carried out his instructions and made his colonists somewhat
comfortable, before his constitution yielded to a new and
insalubrious climate, and he died. … It was not easy for the
proprietors immediately to find a fit successor; and, even had
such been at hand, some time must necessarily have elapsed
before he could safely reach the scene of his labors. But Sir
John Yeamans was near the spot: his long residence had
acclimated him, and, as the historian states, he 'had hitherto
ruled the plantation around Cape Fear with a prudence which
precluded complaint.' He therefore was directed to extend his
command from old Clarendon, on the Cape Fear, to the territory
which was southwest of Cape Carteret. This was in August,
1671. The shores with the adjacent land, and the streams
making into the sea, were by this time very well known to all
the dwellers in Carolina, for the proprietors had caused them
to be surveyed with accuracy.
{2373}
On the banks of Ashley River there was good pasturage, and
land fit for tillage. The planters of Clarendon, therefore,
turned their faces southward, while those from Port Royal
travelled northward; and so the colonists from both
settlements met on the banks of the Ashley, as on a middle
ground, and here in the same year (1671) they laid, 'on the
first high land,' the foundations of 'old Charlestown.' In
1679, it was found that 'Oyster Point,' formed by the
confluence of Ashley and Cooper rivers, was more convenient
for a town than the spot previously selected, and the people,
with the encouragement of the lords proprietors, began to
remove thither. In the next year (1680) were laid the
foundations of the present city of Charleston; thirty houses
were built, and it was declared to be the capital of the
southern part of the province, and also the port for all
commercial traffic. This gradually depopulated old Clarendon.
… We now return to trace the fortunes of the settlement on
Albemarle, under Stephens. As before stated he entered upon
his duties as governor in October, 1667. … His instructions
were very full and explicit. The Assembly was to be composed
of the governor, a council of twelve, and twelve delegates
chosen by the freeholders. Of the twelve councillors, whose
advice, by the way, the governor was required always to take
and follow, one half was to be appointed by the Assembly, the
other half by himself. To this Assembly belonged not only the
power to make laws, but a large share of the executive
authority also. … In 1669, the first legislature under this
constitution assembled. And it is worthy of remark, that at
this period, when the province may be said to have had, for
the first time, a system of regular government, there was in
it a recognition of two great principles which are now part of
the political creed of our whole country, without distinction
of party. These are, first, that the people are entitled to a
voice in the selection of their law-makers; and secondly, that
they cannot rightfully be taxed but by their own
representatives. … The people, we have reason to believe, were
contented and happy during the early part of Stephens'
administration. … But this quiet condition of affairs was not
to last. We have now reached a period in our history which
illustrates the fact, that whatever wisdom may be apparent in
the constitution given to the Albemarle colony by the
proprietors, on the accession of Stephens, was less the result
of deliberation than of a happy accident. … But the time had
now come for the proprietors to carry out their magnificent
project of founding an empire; and disregarding alike the
nature of man, the lessons of experience, and the physical
obstacles of an unsubdued wilderness (even not yet entirely
reclaimed), they resolved that all should yield to their
theories of government, and invoked the aid of philosophy to
accomplish an impossibility. Locke was employed to prepare
'the fundamental constitutions.'"
_F. L. Hawks,
History of North Carolina,
volume 2, pages 441-462._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of thee United States,
volume 2, chapter 12._
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
The Fundamental Constitutions of John Locke,
and their failure.
The royal grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Shaftesbury,
Clarendon, and their associates invested them with "all the
rights, jurisdiction, royalties, privileges, and liberties
within the bounds of their province, to hold, use, and enjoy
the same, in as ample a manner as the bishop of Durham did in
that county-palatine in England: … Agreeably to these powers,
the proprietors proceeded to frame a system of laws for the
colony which they projected. Locke, the well-known
philosopher, was summoned to this work, and the largest
expectations were entertained in consequence of his
co-operation. Locke, though subsequently one of the
proprietors, was, at the beginning, simply the secretary of
the earl of Shaftesbury. The probability is that, in preparing
the constitution for the Carolinas, he rather carried out the
notions of that versatile nobleman than his own. … The code of
laws called the 'Fundamental Constitutions,' which was
devised, and which subsequently became unpopular in the
colony, is not certainly the work of his hands. It is ascribed
by Oldmixon, a contemporary, to the earl of Shaftesbury, one
of the proprietors. The most striking feature in this code
provided for the creation of a nobility, consisting of land
graves, cassiques, and barons. These were to be graduated by
the landed estates which were granted with the dignity; the
eldest of the proprietary lords was to be the superior, with
the title of Palatine, and the people were to be serfs." The
tenants, and the issue of the tenants, "were to be transferred
with the soil, and not at liberty to leave it, but with the
lord's permission, under hand and seal. The whole system was
rejected after a few years' experiment. It has been harshly
judged as … the crude conception of a mind conversant rather
with books than men—with the abstract rather than the
practical in government and society. And this judgment is
certainly true of the constitutions in the case in which they
were employed. They did not suit the absolute conditions of
the country, or the class of people which subsequently made
their way to it. But contemplating the institution of domestic
slavery, as the proprietors had done from the beginning—a
large villanage and a wealthy aristocracy, dominating almost
without restraint or responsibility over the whole—the scheme
was not without its plausibilities. But the feudal tenures
were everywhere dying out. The time had passed, even in
Europe, for such a system. … The great destitution of the
first settlers left them generally without the means of
procuring slaves; and the equal necessities, to which all are
subject who peril life and fortune in a savage forest and on a
foreign shore, soon made the titular distinctions of the few a
miserable mockery, or something worse."
_W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 2, chapter 1._
"The constitutions were signed on the 21st of July, 1669;" but
subsequently revised by the interpolation of a clause, against
the wishes of Locke, establishing the Church of England. "This
revised copy of 'the model' was not signed till March, 1670.
To a colony of which the majority were likely to be
dissenters, the change was vital; it was scarcely noticed in
England, where the model became the theme of extravagant
applause. … As far as depended upon the proprietaries, the
government was immediately organized with Monk, duke of
Albemarle, as palatine." But, meantime, the colonists in the
northern part of the Carolina province had instituted a simple
form of government for themselves, with a council of twelve,
and an assembly composed of the governor, the council, and
twelve delegates from the freeholders of the incipient
settlements.
{2374}
The assembly had already met and had framed some important
laws, which remained "valid in North Carolina for more than
half a century. Hardly had these laws been established when
the new constitution was forwarded to Albemarle. Its
promulgation did but favor anarchy by invalidating the
existing system, which it could not replace. The
proprietaries, contrary to stipulations with the colonists,
superseded the existing government, and the colonists
resolutely rejected the substitute." Much the same state of
things appeared in the South Carolina settlements (not yet
separately named), and successive disorders and revolutionary
changes made up the history of the pseudo palatinate for many
years.
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._
In 1693, "to conciliate the colonists, and to get rid of the
dispute which had arisen as to the binding force of the 'Grand
Model,' the proprietors voted that, 'as the people have
declared they would rather be governed by the powers granted
by the charter, without regard to the fundamental
constitutions, it will be for their quiet, and the protection
of the well-disposed, to grant their request.' This abrogation
of the labors of Locke removed one bone of contention; but as
the 'Grand Model' had never been actually carried into effect,
the government went on much as before. Each of the
proprietaries continued to have his special delegate in the
colony, or rather two delegates, one for South Carolina, the
other for Albemarle, the eight together constituting the
council in either province, over which the governor presided
as delegate of the palatine, to whom his appointment
belonged."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._
The text of the "fundamental constitutions" is printed in
volume 9 of the 12th edition of Locke's complete works, and in
volume 10 of several prior editions.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
Slow progress and unprosperous state of the colony.
End of the Proprietary Government.
In 1688, Carolina (the northern province) being afflicted with
a governor, one Seth Sothel, who is accused of every variety
of extortion and rapacity, the colonists rose up against him,
tried him before their assembly, deposed him from his office
and drove him into exile. "The Proprietors demurred to the
form of this procedure, but acquiesced in the substance of it,
and thereby did something to confirm that contempt for
government which was one of the leading characteristics of the
colony. During the years which followed, the efforts of the
Proprietors to maintain any authority over their Northern
province, or to connect it in any way with their Southern
territory, were little more than nominal. For the most part
the two settlements were distinguished by the Proprietors as
'our colony north-east of Cape Fear,' and 'our colony
south-west of Cape Fear.' As early as 1691 we find the
expression North Carolina once used. After that we do not meet
with it till 1696. From that time onward both expressions are
used with no marked distinction, sometimes even in the same
document. At times the Proprietors seem to have aimed at
establishing a closer connexion between the two colonies by
placing them under a single Governor. But in nearly all these
cases provision was made for the appointment of separate
Deputy-Governors, nor does there seem to have been any project
for uniting the two legislative bodies. … In 1720 the first
event occurred which throws any clear light from without on
the internal life of the colony. In that year boundary
disputes arose between Virginia and her southern neighbour and
it was found necessary to appoint representatives on each side
to settle the boundary line. The chief interest of the matter
lies in the notes left to us by one of the Virginia
Commissioners [Colonel William Byrd]. … After making all …
deductions and checking Byrd's report by that of graver
writers, there remains a picture of poverty, indolence, and
thriftlessness which finds no counterpart in any of the other
southern colonies. That the chief town contained only some
fifty poor cottages is little or nothing more than what we
find in Maryland or Virginia. But there the import trade with
England made up for the deficiencies of colonial life. North
Carolina, lacking the two essentials of trade, harbours and a
surplus population, had no commercial dealings with the mother
country. … The only possessions which abounded were horses and
swine, both of which could be reared in droves without any
care or attention. … The evils of slavery existed without its
counterbalancing advantages. There was nothing to teach those
habits of administration which the rich planters of Virginia
and South Carolina learnt as part of their daily life. At the
same time the colony suffered from one of the worst effects of
slavery, a want of manual skill. … In 1729 the faint and
meaningless shadow of proprietary government came to an end.
The Crown bought up first the shares of seven Proprietors,
then after an interval that of the eighth. In the case of
other colonies the process of transfer had been effected by a
conflict and by something approaching to revolution. In North
Carolina alone it seems to have come about with the peaceful
assent of all parties. … Without a struggle, North Carolina
cast off all traces of its peculiar origin and passed into the
ordinary state of a crown colony."
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America:
Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas,
chapter 12._
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1710.
Palatine colonization at New Berne.
See PALATINES.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1711-1714.
Indian rising and massacre of colonists.
Subjugation and expulsion of the Tuscaroras.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
War with the Spaniards in Florida.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
The Cherokee War.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act.
The First Continental Congress.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend Duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.
{2375}
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
The insurrection of the Regulators.
Battle of Alamance.
Complaints of official extortion, which were loud in several
of the colonies at about the same period, led to serious
results in North Carolina. "Complaints were most rife in the
middle counties, a very barren portion of the province, with a
population generally poor and ignorant. These people
complained, and not without reason—for the poor and ignorant
are ever most exposed to oppression—not only that excessive
fees were extorted, but that the sheriffs collected taxes of
which they rendered no account. They seem also to have held
the courts and lawyers—indeed, the whole system for the
collection of debts —in great detestation. Presently, under
the name of 'Regulators,' borrowed from South Carolina, they
formed associations which not only refused the payment of
taxes, but assaulted the persons and property of lawyers,
judges, sheriffs, and other obnoxious individuals, and even
proceeded so far as to break up the sessions of the courts.
The common name of Regulators designated, in the two
Carolinas, combinations composed of different materials, and
having different objects in view. The Assembly of the province
took decided ground against them, and even expelled one of
their leaders, who had been elected a member. After
negotiations and delays, and broken promises to keep the
peace, Governor Tryon, at the head of a body of volunteers,
marched into the disaffected counties. The Regulators
assembled in arms, and an action was fought at Alamance, on
the Haw, near the head waters of Cape Fear River, in which
some 200 were left dead upon the field. Out of a large number
taken prisoners, six were executed for high treason. Though
the Regulators submitted, they continued to entertain a deadly
hatred against the militia of the lower counties, which had
taken part against them. Tryon was presently removed from
North Carolina to New York. His successor, Joseph Martin,
anxious to strengthen himself against the growing discontents
of the province, promised to redress the grievances, and
sedulously cultivated the good will of the Regulators, and
with such success that they became, in the end, staunch
supporters of the royal authority."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 29 (volume 2). _
ALSO IN:
_F. X. Martin,
History of North Carolina,
chapters 7-8._
_J. H. Wheeler,
History of North Carolina,
chapter 8._
_F. L. Hawks,
Battle of the Alamance
(Revised History of North Carolina)._
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1768-1774.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, to 1774.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlement of Tennessee.
The Watauga Association.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The Siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 (May).
The Mecklenburg Declaration.
"It has been strenuously claimed and denied that, at a meeting
of the people of Mecklenburg County, in North Carolina, on May
20, 1775, resolutions were passed declaring their independence
of Great Britain. The facts in the case appear to be these:—On
the 31st of May, 1775, the people of this county did pass
resolutions quite abreast of the public sentiment of that
time, but not venturing on the field of independency further
than to say that these resolutions were to remain in force
till Great Britain resigned its pretensions. These resolutions
were well written, attracted notice, and were copied into the
leading newspapers of the colonies, North and South, and can
be found in various later works (Lossing's 'Field-Book,' ii,
619, etc.). A copy of the 'South Carolina Gazette' containing
them was sent by Governor Wright, of Georgia, to Lord
Dartmouth, and was found by Bancroft in the State Paper
Office, while in the Sparks MSS. (no. lvi) is the record of a
copy sent to the home government by Governor Martin of North
Carolina, with a letter dated June 30, 1775. Of these
resolutions there is no doubt (Frothingham's 'Rise of the
Republic,' 422). In 1793, or earlier, some of the actors in
the proceeding, apparently ignorant that the record of these
resolutions had been preserved in the newspapers, endeavored
to supply them from memory, unconsciously intermingling some
of the phraseology of the Declaration of July 4th, in
Congress, which gave them the tone of a pronounced
independency. Probably through another dimness of memory they
affixed the date of May 20, 1775, to them. These were first
printed in the 'Raleigh Register,' April 30, 1819. They are
found to resemble in some respects the now known resolves of
May 31st, as well as the national Declaration in a few
phrases. In 1829 Martin printed them, much altered, in his
'North Carolina' (ii, 272) but it is not known where this copy
came from. In 1831 the State printed the text of the 1819
copy, and fortified it with recollections and certificates of
persons affirming that they were present when the resolutions
were passed on the 20th."
_J. Winsor,
Note in Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 6, page 256._
"We are inclined to conjecture that there was a popular
meeting at Charlottetown on the 19th and 20th of May, where
discussion was had on the subject of independence, and
probably some more or less explicit understanding arrived at,
which became the basis of the committee's action on the 31st.
If so, we make no doubt that J. McN. Alexander was secretary
of that meeting. He, probably, in that case, recorded the
proceedings, and among them some resolution or resolutions in
regard to the propriety of throwing off the British yoke. … It
was in attempting to remember the records of that meeting,
destroyed by fire, that John McN. Alexander, then an old man,
fell into the errors" which led him, in 1800, to certify, as
Secretary, a copy of the document called the Mecklenburg
Declaration of Independence.
_H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 3, appendix 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. A. Graham,
Address on the Mecklenburg Declaration, 1875._
_F. L. Hawks,
The Mecklenburg Declaration
(Revised History of Georgia)._
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.
The arming of the loyalist Highlanders
and their defeat at Moore's Creek.
The first colony vote for independence.
"North Carolina was the first colony to act as a unit in favor
of independence. It was the fourth in importance of the United
Colonies. Its Provincial Congress had organized the militia,
and vested the public authority in a provincial council for
the whole colony, committees of safety for the districts, and
county and town committees. A large portion of the people were
adherents of the crown,—among them a body of Highland
emigrants, and most of the party of regulators. Governor
Martin represented, not without grounds, that, if these
loyalists were supported by a British force, the colony might
be gained to the royal side.
{2376}
The loyalists were also numerous in Georgia and South
Carolina. Hence it was determined by the King to send an
expedition to the Southern Colonies in the winter, to restore
the royal authority. This was put under the command of Sir
Henry Clinton, and ordered to rendezvous at Cape Fear. 'I am
clear,' wrote George III., 'the first attempt should be made
on North Carolina, as the Highland settlers are said to be
well inclined.' Commissions were issued to men of influence
among them, one being Allan McDonald, the husband of the
chivalrous Flora McDonald, who became famous by romantic
devotion to Prince Charles Edward. Donald McDonald was
appointed the commander. These officers, under the direction
of the governor, after much secret consultation, enrolled
about 1,500 men. The popular leaders, however, were informed
of their designs. The militia were summoned, and took the
field under Colonel James Moore. At length, when Sir Henry
Clinton was expected at Cape Fear, General McDonald erected
the royal standard at Cross Creek, now Fayetteville, and moved
forward to join Clinton. Colonel Moore ordered parties of the
militia to take post at Moore's Creek Bridge, over which
McDonald would be obliged to pass. Colonel Richard Caswell was
at the head of one of these parties: hence the force here was
under his command: and this place on the 27th of February
[1776] became a famous battle-field. The Provincials were
victorious. They captured a great quantity of military
supplies, nearly 900 men, and their commander. This was the
Lexington and Concord of that region. The newspapers
circulated the details of this brilliant result. The spirit of
the Whigs run high. … A strong force was soon ready and
anxious to meet Clinton. Amidst these scenes, the people
elected delegates to a Provincial Congress, which met, on the
4th of April [1776], at Halifax. … Attempts were made to
ascertain the sense of the people on independence. … The
subject was referred to a committee, of which Cornelius
Harnett was the chairman. They reported an elaborate preamble
… and a resolution to empower the delegates in the General
Congress 'to concur with the delegates in the other colonies
in declaring independency and forming foreign
alliances,—reserving to the colony the sole and exclusive
right of forming a constitution and laws for it,' also 'of
appointing delegates in a general representation of the
colonies for such purposes as might be agreed upon.' This was
unanimously adopted on the 12th of April. Thus the popular
party carried North Carolina as a unit in favor of
independence, when the colonies, from New England to Virginia,
were in solid array against it. The example was warmly
welcomed by the patriots, and commended for imitation."
_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_J. W. Moore,
History of North Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 10._
_D. L. Swain,
British Invasion of North Carolina in 1776
(Revised History of North Carolina)._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A: D. 1776 (JUNE).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.
Annexation of the Watauga settlements (Tennessee).
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1780.
Independence declared.
Adoption of State Constitution.
The war in the North.
British conquest of Georgia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1780.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1783.
The war in the South.
Greene's campaign.
King's Mountain.
The Cowpens.
Guilford Court House.
Hobkirk's Hill.
Eutaw Springs.
Yorktown.
Peace.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1784.
Revolt of the Tennessee settlements
against their cession to Congress.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1785-1788.
The state of Franklin organized by the Tennessee settlers.
Its brief and troubled history.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785; and 1785-1796.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1786.
Importation of Negroes discouraged.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787~1789.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1790.
Renewed cession of western Territory (Tennessee)
to the United States.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (January-May).
The difficult dragging of the state into Secession.
"A large majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed
to secession. They did not regard it as a constitutional
right. They were equally opposed to a separation from the
Union in resentment of the election of Mr. Lincoln. But the
Governor, John W. Ellis, was in full sympathy with the
secessionists. He spared no pains to bring the state into line
with South Carolina [which had passed her ordinance of
Secession December 20, 1860.]
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The legislature met on the 20th of November. The governor, in
his message, recommended that the legislature should invite a
conference with the Southern States, or send delegates to them
for the purpose of securing their co-operation. He also
recommended the reorganization of the militia, and the call of
a state convention. Bills were introduced for the purpose of
carrying these measures into effect. … On the 30th of January,
a bill for calling a state convention was passed. It provided
that no secession ordinance, nor one connecting the state with
the Southern Confederacy, would be valid until it should be
ratified by a majority of the qualified voters of the state.
The vote of the people was appointed to take place on the 28th
of February. The delegates were elected on the day named. A
large majority of them were Unionists. But, at the same time,
the convention itself was voted down. The vote for a
convention was 46,671; against a convention, 47,333. The
majority against it was 662. This majority against a
convention, however, was no criterion of popular sentiment in
regard to secession. The true test was the votes received,
respectively, by the Union and secession delegates. The former
received a majority of nearly 30,000. But the indefatigable
governor was not to be balked by the popular dislike for
secession. The legislature was called together in extra
session on May 1. On the same day they voted to have another
election for delegates to a state convention on the 13th of
the month. The election took place accordingly, and the
delegates convened on the 20th. On the following day the
secession ordinance was adopted, and the Confederate
Constitution ratified. To save time, and avoid further
obstructions, the question of popular approval was taken for
granted."
_S. S. Cox,
Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
pages 119-120._
ALSO IN:
_J. W. Moore,
History of North Carolina,
volume 2, chapter 5._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
{2377}
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Ellis' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (August).
Hatteras Inlet taken by the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (January-April).
Capture of Roanoke Island, Newbern and Beaufort
by the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
Appointment of a Military Governor.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1862 (MARCH-JUNE).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (April-May).
Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
Confederate capture of Plymouth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864 (October).
Destruction of the ram Albemarle.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1864-1865 (December-January).
The capture of Fort Fisher.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY:
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
Sherman's March.
The Battle of Bentonsville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).
Federal occupation of Wilmington.
Battle of Kinston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (May).
Provisional government under
President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1868.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.
----------NORTH CAROLINA: End--------
NORTH DAKOTA:
Admission to the Union (1889).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
NORTH RIVER, The.
See SOUTH RIVER.
NORTHAMPTON, Battle of.
One of the battles in the English civil wars of the 15th
century called the Wars of the Roses, fought July 10, 1460.
The royalist party (Lancastrians) were signally defeated, King
Henry VI. taken prisoner, and Queen Margaret driven in flight
to the north.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
NORTHAMPTON, Peace of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
NORTHBROOK, LORD, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1862-1876.
NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
NORTHERN CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
NORTHERN MARITIME LEAGUE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
NORTHMEN.
See NORMANS.
----------NORTHUMBRIA: Start--------
NORTHUMBRIA, Kingdom of.
The northernmost of the kingdoms formed by the Angles in
Britain in the 6th century. It embraced the two kingdoms of
Bernicia and Deira, sometimes ruled by separate princes,
sometimes united, as Northumbria, under one, and extending
from the Humber to the Forth.
See ENGLAND: IA. D. 547-633.
NORTHUMBRIA: 10-11th Centuries.
Lothian joined to Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: 10-11th CENTURIES.
----------NORTHUMBRIA: End--------
NORTHWEST FUR COMPANY.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
"The North West Territories comprise all lands [of the
Dominion of Canada] not within the limits of any province or
of the District of Keewatin. The area of the Territories is
about 3,000,000 square miles or four times as great as the
area of all the provinces together. The Territories were ceded
to Canada by an Order in Council dated the 24th June 1870. …
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
The southern portion of the territories between Manitoba and
British Columbia has been formed into four provisional
districts, viz. Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and
Athabasca. By the Dominion Act 38 Vie. c. 49 executive and
legislative powers were conferred on a Lieutenant-Governor and
a Council of five members subject to instructions given by
Order in Council or by the Canadian Secretary of State."
_J. E. C. Munro,
The Constitution of Canada,
chapter 2._
----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The Old.
"This northwestern land lay between the Mississippi, the Ohio,
and the Great Lakes. It now constitutes five of our large
States and part of a sixth [namely, western Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan]. But when
independence was declared it was quite as much a foreign
territory, considered from the standpoint of the old thirteen
colonies, as Florida or Canada; the difference was that,
whereas during the war we failed in our attempts to conquer
Florida and Canada, we succeeded in conquering the Northwest.
The Northwest formed no part of our country as it originally
stood; it had no portion in the declaration of independence.
It did not revolt; it was conquered. … We made our first
important conquest during the Revolution itself."
_T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, pages 32-33._
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1673-1751.
Early French exploration and occupation.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673; 16611-1687; 1700-1735;
also ILLINOIS: A. D. 1700-1750; and 1751.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1748-1763.
Struggle of the French and English for possession.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
and CANADA: A. D. 1758.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
Cession to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
Possession taken.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
and ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
{2378}
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763.
The king's proclamation excluding settlers, and reserving
the whole interior of the continent for the Indians.
"On the 7th of October, 1763, George III. issued a
proclamation, providing for four new governments or colonies,
namely: Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada [the
latter embracing 'the island of that name, together with the
Grenadines, and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent and
'Tobago'], and defining their boundaries. The limits of Quebec
did not vary materially from those of the present province of
that name, and those of East and West Florida comprised the
present State of Florida and the country north of the Gulf of
Mexico to the parallel of 31° latitude. It will be seen that
no provision was made for the government of nine tenths of the
new territory acquired by the Treaty of Paris, and the
omission was not an oversight, but was intentional. The
purpose was to reserve as crown lands the Northwest territory,
the region north of the great lakes, and the country between
the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, and to exclude them from
settlement by the American colonies. They were left, for the
time being, to the undisputed possession of the savage tribes.
The king's 'loving subjects' were forbidden making purchases
of land from the Indians, or forming any settlements 'westward
of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the
West and Northwest,' 'and all persons who have wilfully or
inadvertently seated themselves upon any lands' west of this
limit were warned 'forthwith to remove themselves from such
settlements.' Certain reasons for this policy were assigned in
the proclamation, such as, 'preventing irregularities in the
future, and that the Indians may be convinced of our justice,'
etc.; but the real explanation appears in the Report of the
Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1772, on the
petition of Thomas Walpole and others for a grant of land on
the Ohio. The report was drawn by Lord Hillsborough, the
president of the board. The report states: 'We take leave to
remind your lordships of that principle which was adopted by
this Board, and approved and confirmed by his Majesty,
immediately after the Treaty of Paris, viz.: the confining the
western extent of settlements to such a distance from the
sea-coasts as that those settlements should lie within reach
of the trade and commerce of this kingdom, … and also of the
exercise of that authority and jurisdiction which was
conceived to be necessary for the preservation of the colonies
in a due subordination to, and dependence upon, the mother
country. And these we apprehend to have been the two capital
objects of his Majesty's proclamation of the 7th of October,
1763. … The great object of colonizing upon the continent of
North America has been to improve and extend the commerce,
navigation, and manufactures of this kingdom. … It does appear
to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely
upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their
hunting-grounds, and that all colonizing does in its nature,
and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that
branch of commerce. … Let the Savages enjoy their deserts in
quiet. Were they driven from their forests the peltry-trade
would decrease.' … Such in clear and specific terms was the
cold and selfish policy which the British crown and its
ministers habitually pursued towards the American colonies;
and in a few years it changed loyalty into hate, and brought
on the American Revolution."
_W. F. Poole,
The West, from 1763 to 1783
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 6, chapter 9)._
"The king's proclamation [of 1763] shows that, in the
construction put upon the treaty by the crown authorities, the
ceded territory was a new acquisition by conquest. The
proclamation was the formal appropriation of it as the king's
domain, embracing all the country west of the heads or sources
of the rivers falling into the Atlantic."
_R. King,
Ohio,
chapter 5._
The text of the Proclamation of 1763 is in
_Force's
American Archives,
series 4, volume 1, page 172._
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Boundary arrangement with the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
The territorial claims of Virginia.
Lord Dunmore's War.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1778-1779.
Its conquest from the British by the Virginian General Clark,
and its organization under the jurisdiction of Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1781-1786.
Cession of the conflicting territorial claims of the States
to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA:A. D. 1784.
Jefferson's plan for new States.
"The condition of the northwestern territory had long been
under the consideration of the House [the Congress of the
Confederation]. Several committees had been appointed, and
several schemes listened to, for laying out new States, but it
was not till the middle of April [1784], that a resolution
was finally reached. One plan was to divide the ceded and
purchased lands into seventeen States. Eight of these were to
lie between the banks of the Mississippi and a north and south
line through the falls of the Ohio. Eight more were to be
marked out between this line and a second one parallel to it,
and passing through the western bank of the mouth of the Great
Kanawha. What remained was to form the seventeenth State. But
few supporters were found for the measure, and a committee,
over which Jefferson presided, was ordered to place before
Congress a new scheme of division. Chase and Howe assisted
him; and the three devised a plan whereby the prairie-lands
were to be parted out among ten new States. The divisions then
marked down have utterly disappeared, and the names given to
them become so forgotten that nine tenths of the population
which has, in our time, covered the whole region with wealthy
cities and prosperous villages, and turned it from a waste to
a garden, have never in their lives heard the words
pronounced. Some were borrowed from the Latin and some from
the Greek; while others were Latinized forms of the names the
Indians had given to the rivers. The States were to be, as far
as possible, two degrees of latitude in width and arranged in
three tiers. The Mississippi and a meridian through the falls
of the Ohio included the western tier. The meridian through
the falls of the Ohio and a second through the mouth of the
Great Kanawha were the boundaries of the middle tier. Between
this and the Pennsylvania West Line lay the third tier. That
vast tract stretching from the 45th parallel of latitude to
the Lake of the Woods, and dense with forests of pine, of
hickory, and of oak, they called Sylvania.
{2379}
It was the northern State of the western tier. To the long
tongue of land separating the water of Michigan from the
waters of Erie and Huron they gave the name Cherronesus. A
narrow strip, not more than two degrees of latitude in width,
and stretching from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, was
called Michigania. As marked down on their rude maps,
Michigania lay under Sylvania, in the very heart of what is
now Wisconsin. South of this to the 41st parallel of latitude
was Assenisipia, a name derived from Assenisipi, the Indian
title of the river now called the Rock. Eastward, along the
shore of Lake Erie, the country was named Metropotamia. It
took the name Mother of Rivers from the belief that within its
boundary were the fountains of many rivers, the Muskingum, the
two Miamis of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Sandusky,
and the Miami of the Lake. That part of Illinois between the
39th and 41st parallels was called, from the river which
waters it, Illinoia. On to the east was Saratoga, and beyond
this lay Washington, a broad and level tract shut in by the
Ohio river, the waters of the lake, and the boundaries of
Pennsylvania. Under Illinoia and Saratoga, and stretching
along the Ohio, was the ninth State. Within its confines the
waters of the Wabash, the Sawane, the Tanissee, the Illinois,
and the Ohio were mingled with the waters of the Mississippi
and Missouri. The committee therefore judged that a fitting
name would be Polypotamia. Pelisipia was the tenth State. It
lay to the east of Polypotamia, and was named from Pelisipi, a
term the Cherokees often applied to the river Ohio. At the
same time that the boundaries of the new States were defined,
a code of laws was drawn up which should serve as a
constitution for each State, till 20,000 free inhabitants
acquired the right of self-government. The code was in no wise
a remarkable performance, yet there were among its articles
two which cannot be passed by in silence. One provided for the
abolition of slavery after the year 1800. The other announced
that no one holding an hereditary title should ever become a
citizen of the new States. Each was struck out by the House.
Yet each is deserving of notice. The one because it was the
first attempt at a national condemnation of slavery, the other
because it was a public expression of the dread with which our
ancestors beheld the growth of the Society of the Cincinnati."
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
The report of Jefferson's committee "was recommitted to the
same committee on the 17th of March, and a new one was
submitted on the 22d of the same month. The second report
agreed in substance with the first. The principal difference
was the omission of the paragraph giving names to the States to
be formed out of the Western Territory." After striking out the
clauses prohibiting slavery after the year 1800 and denying
citizenship to all persons holding hereditary titles, the
Congress adopted the report, April 23, 1784. "Thus the
substance of the report of Mr. Jefferson of a plan for the
government of the Western Territory (without restrictions as to
slavery) became a law, and remained so during 1784 to 1787,
when these resolutions were repealed in terms by the passage of
the ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the
United States northwest of the river Ohio.'"
_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain: its History,
pages 148-149._
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1786-1788.
The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and
their land purchase.
The settlement at Marietta.
"The Revolutionary War had hardly closed before thousands of
the disbanded officers and soldiers were looking anxiously to
the Western lands for new homes, or for means of repairing
their shattered fortunes. In June, 1783, a strong memorial was
sent to Congress asking a grant of the lands between the Ohio
and Lake Erie. Those who lived in the South were fortunate in
having immediate access to the lands of Kentucky, Tennessee,
and the back parts of Georgia. The strife in Congress over the
lands of the Northwest delayed the surveys and the bounties so
long that the soldiers of the North almost lost hope."
Finally, there "was a meeting of officers and soldiers,
chiefly of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut
lines, at Boston, March 1, 1786, when they formed a new Ohio
Company for the purchase and settlement of Western lands, in
shares of $1,000. General Putnam [Rufus], General Samuel H.
Parsons, and the Rev. Manasseh Cutler, were made the
directors, and selected for their purchase the lands on the
Ohio River situated on both sides of the Muskingum, and
immediately west of the Seven Ranges. The treasury board in
those days were the commissioners of public lands, but with no
powers to enter into absolute sales unless such were approved
by Congress. Weeks and months were lost in waiting for a
quorum of that body to assemble. This was effected on the 11th
of July, and Dr. Cutler, deputed by his colleagues, was in
attendance, but was constantly baffled in pursuing his
objects. … The members were disposed to insert conditions
which were not satisfactory to the Ohio Company. But the
doctor carried his point by formally intimating that he should
retire, and seek better terms with some of the States, which
were offering their lands at half the price Congress was to
receive. The grant to the Ohio Company, upon the terms
proposed, was voted by Congress, and the contract formally
signed October 27, 1787, by the treasury board, and by Dr.
Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, as agents of the Ohio Company.
Two companies, including surveyors, boat-builders, carpenters,
smiths, farmers and laborers, 48 persons in all, with their
outfit, were sent forward in the following months of December
and January, under General Putnam as leader and
superintendent. They united in February on the Youghiogheny
River and constructed boats. … Embarking with their stores
they descended the Ohio, and on the 7th of April, 1788, landed
at the Muskingum. On the upper point, opposite Fort Harmar,
they founded their town, which at Boston had first been named
Adelphia. At the first meeting of the directors, held on the
ground July 2d, the name of Marietta was adopted, in honor of
the French Queen Marie Antoinette, and compounded of the first
and last syllables."
_R. King,
Ohio,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
Life, Journals and Correspondence
of Reverend Manasseh Cutler,
volume 1, chapters 4-7 and 9._
_C. M. Walker,
History of Athens County, Ohio,
chapter 2._
{2380}
NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF USA: A. D. 1787.
The great Ordinance for its government.
Perpetual Exclusion of Slavery.
"Congress at intervals discussed the future of this great
domain, but for a while little progress was made except to
establish that Congress could divide the territory as might
seem best. Nathan Dane came forward with a motion for a
committee to plan some temporary scheme of government. A
committee on this point reported (May 10, 1786) that the
number of States should be from two to five, to be admitted as
States according to Jefferson's proposition, but the question
of slavery in them was left open. Nothing definite was done
till a committee—Johnson of Connecticut, Pinckney of South
Carolina, Smith of New York, Dane of Massachusetts, and Henry
of Maryland—reported on April 26, 1787, 'An ordinance for the
government of the Western territory,' and after various
amendments it was fairly transcribed for a third reading, May
10th. Further consideration was now delayed until July. It was
at this point that Manasseh Cutler appeared in New York,
commissioned to buy land for the Ohio Company in the region
whose future was to be determined by this ordinance, and it
was very likely, in part, by his influence that those features
of the perfected ordinance as passed five days later, and
which has given it its general fame, were introduced. On July
9th the bill was referred to a new committee, of which a
majority were Southern men, Carrington of Virginia taking the
chairmanship from Johnson; Dane and Smith were retained, but
Richard Henry Lee and Kean of South Carolina supplanted
Pinckney and Henry. This change was made to secure the
Southern support; on the other hand, acquiescence in the
wishes of Northern purchasers of lands was essential in any
business outcome of the movement. 'Up to this time,' says
Poole, 'there were no articles of compact in the bill, no
anti-slavery clause, nothing about liberty of conscience or of
the press, the right of habeas corpus, or of trial by jury, or
the equal distribution of estates. The clause that, "religion,
morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and
the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall be forever encouraged," was not there.' These omissions
were the New England ideas, which had long before this been
engrafted on the Constitution of Massachusetts. This new
committee reported the bill, embodying all these provisions
except the anti-slavery clause, on the 11th, and the next day
this and other amendments were made. On the 13th, but one
voice was raised against the bill on its final passage, and
that came from Yates of New York. Poole intimates that it was
the promise of the governorship of the territory under the
ordinance which induced St. Clair, then President of Congress,
to lend it his countenance. The promise, if such it was, was
fulfilled, and St. Clair became the first governor."
_J. Winsor and E. Channing,
Territorial Acquisitions and Divisions
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 7, appendix)._
ALSO IN:
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 15._
_W. F. Poole,
Doctor Cutler and the Ordinance of 1787
(North American Review, April, 1876._
_W. P. and J. P. Cutler,
Life of Manasseh Cutler,
volume 1, chapter 8._
_J. P. Dunn, Jr.,
Indiana,
chapter 5._
_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
pages 149-159._
_J. A. Barrett,
Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787
(University of Nebraska, Seminary Papers, 1891)._
_J. P. Dunn, editor,
Slavery Petitions
(Indiana Historical Society,
volume 2, number 12)._
See, also,
EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA.: A. D. 1785-1880.
The following is the text of the "Ordinance for the Government
of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River
Ohio," commonly known as the "Ordinance of 1787":
"Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled,
That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary
government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided
into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the
opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the
authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and
non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying
intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among, their
children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal
parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to
take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among
them: And where there shall be no children or descendants,
then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and,
among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or
sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them,
their deceased parents' share; and there shall, in no case, be
a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood;
saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third
part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the
personal estate; and this law, relative to descents and dower,
shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of
the district. And, until the governor and judges shall adopt
laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory
may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and
sealed by him or her, in whom the estate may be (being of full
age,) and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be
conveyed by lease and release, or, bargain and sale, signed,
sealed, and delivered by the person, being of full age, in
whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses,
provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be
acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be
recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and
registers shall be appointed for that purpose: and personal
property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to
the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the
Kaskaskias, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages who
have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia,
their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to
the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the
authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed, from time
to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commission shall
continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner
revoked by Congress; he shall reside in the district, and have
a freehold estate therein in 1,000 acres of land, while in the
exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to
time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall
continue in force for four years unless sooner revoked; he
shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate
therein in 500 acres of land, while in the exercise of his
office; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and
laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the
district, and the proceedings of the governor in his Executive
department; and transmit authentic copies of such acts and
proceedings, every six months, to the Secretary of Congress:
{2381}
There shall also be appointed a court to consist of three
judges, any two of whom to form a court, who shall have a
common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have
each therein a freehold estate in, 500 acres of land while in
the exercise of their offices; and their commissions shall
continue in force during good behavior. The governor and
judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the
district such laws of the original States, criminal and civil,
as may be necessary and best suited to the circumstances of
the district, and report them to Congress from time to time:
which laws shall be in force in the district until the
organization of the General Assembly therein, unless
disapproved of by Congress; but, afterwards, the legislature
shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit.
The governor, for the time being, shall be commander-in-chief
of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the
same below the rank of general officers; all general Officers
shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. Previous to
the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall
appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each
county or township, as he shall find necessary for the
preservation of the peace and good order in the same: After
the General Assembly shall be organized, the powers and duties
of the magistrates and other civil officers, shall be
regulated and defined by the said assembly; but all
magistrates and other civil officers, not herein otherwise
directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary
government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention
of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall
have force in all parts of the district, and for the execution
of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper
divisions thereof; and he shall proceed, from time to time, as
circumstances may require, to layout the parts of the district
in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into
counties and townships, subject, however, to such alterations
as may thereafter be made by the legislature. So soon as there
shall be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the
district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they
shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect
representatives from their counties or townships to represent
them in the General Assembly: Provided, That, for every 500
free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and
so on progressively with the number of free male inhabitants,
shall the right of representation increase, until the number
of representatives shall amount to 25; after which, the number
and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the
legislature: Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified
to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen
of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in
the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district
three years; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his
own right, in fee simple, 200 acres of land within the same:
Provided, also, That a freehold in 50 acres of land in the
district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and
being resident in the district, or the like freehold and two
years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify
a man as an elector of a representative. The representatives
thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and, in
case of the death of a representative, or removal from office,
the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for
which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve
for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or
Legislature, shall consist of the governor, legislative
council, and a house of representatives. The legislative
council shall consist of five members, to continue in office
five years, unless sooner removed by Congress; any three of
whom to be a quorum: and the members of the council shall be
nominated and appointed in the following manner, to wit: As
soon as representatives shall be elected, the governor shall
appoint a time and place for them to meet together; and, when
met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the
district, and each possessed of a freehold in 500 acres of
land, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid;
and, whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by death
or removal from office, the house of representatives shall
nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for such
vacancy, and return their names to Congress; one of whom
Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the
term. And every five years, four months at least before the
expiration of the time of service of the members of council,
the said house shall nominate ten persons, qualified as
aforesaid, and return their names to Congress; five of whom
Congress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of
the council five years, unless sooner removed. And the
governor, legislative council, and house of representatives,
shall have authority to make laws in all cases, for the good
government of the district, not repugnant to the principles
and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And
all bills, having passed by a majority in the house, and by a
majority in the council, shall be referred to the governor for
his assent; but no bill, or legislative act whatever, shall be
of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power
to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when,
in his opinion, it shall be expedient. The governor, judges,
legislative council, secretary, and such other officers as
Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or
affirmation of fidelity and of office; the governor before the
President of Congress, and all other officers before the
governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the
district, the council and house assembled in one room, shall
have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to
Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of
debating but not of voting during this temporary government.
And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and
religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these
republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix
and establish those principles as the basis of all laws,
constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall
be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the
establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and
for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an
equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as
may be consistent with the general interest: It is hereby
ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the
following articles shall be considered as articles of compact
between the original States and the people and States in the
said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by
common consent, to wit:
{2382}
Article 1st.
No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly
manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of
worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.
Article 2d.
The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled
to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial
by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in
the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the
course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable,
unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident
or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no
cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall
be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of
his peers or the law of the land: and, should the public
exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to
take any person's property, or to demand his particular
services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And,
in the just preservation of rights and property, it is
understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or
have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner
whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or
engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.
Article 3d.
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good
faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their
lands and property shall never be taken from them without
their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty,
they shall never be invaded or, disturbed, unless in just and
lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in
justice and humanity, shall, from time to time, be made for
preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace
and friendship with them.
Article 4th.
The said territory, and the States which may be formed
therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
the United States of America, subject to the Articles of
Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be
constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of
the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto.
The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be
subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be
contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of
government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to
the same common rule and measure by which apportionments
thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes, for
paying their proportion, shall be laid and levied by the
authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or
districts, or new States, as in the original States, within
the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress
assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States,
shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by
the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any
regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title
in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No tax shall be
imposed on lands the property of the United States: and, in no
case, shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than
residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi
and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same,
shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the
inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the
United States, and those of any other States that may be
admitted into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or
duty, therefor.
Article 5th.
There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than
three nor more than five States; and the boundaries of the
States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession,
and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as
follows, to wit: The Western State in the said territory,
shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash
rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post St.
Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line between the
United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line,
to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State
shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post
Vincent's, to the Ohio: by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn
due North from the mouth of the Great Miami, to the said
territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The
Eastern State shall be bounded by the last mentioned direct
line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line:
Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared,
that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it
expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East
and West line drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of
Lake Michigan. And, whenever any of the said States shall have
60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted,
by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
an equal footing with the original States in all respects
whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution
and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in
conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and,
so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of
the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier
period, and when there may be a less number of free
inhabitants in the State than 60,000.
Article 6th.
There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of
crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted:
Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the
original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and
conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as
aforesaid. Be It ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the
resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the subject
of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and
declared null and void. Done by the United States, in Congress
assembled, the 13th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1787,
and of their sovereignty and independence the twelfth."
{2383}
NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
Extinguished by divisions.
Creation of the Territory of Indiana and the State of Ohio.
"Arthur St. Clair was appointed governor by the Congress [of
the Confederation] February 1, 1788, and Winthrop Sargent
secretary. August 7th, 1789, Congress [under the federal
constitution], in view of the new method of appointment of
officers as provided in the Constitution, passed an amendatory
act to the Ordinance of 1787, providing for the nomination of
officers for the Territory by the President. … August 8, 1789,
President Washington sent to the Senate the names of Arthur
St. Clair for governor, Winthrop Sargent for secretary, and
Samuel Holden Parsons, John Cleves Symmes, and William Barton,
for judges. … They were all confirmed. President Washington in
this message designated the country as 'The Western
Territory.' The supreme court was established at Cincinnati (…
named by St. Clair in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati,
he having been president of the branch society in
Pennsylvania). St. Clair remained governor until November 22,
1802. Winthrop Sargent afterwards, in 1798, went to
Mississippi as governor of that Territory. William Henry
Harrison became secretary in 1797, representing it in Congress
in 1799-1800, and he became governor of the Territory of
Indiana in 1800. May 7, 1800, Congress, upon petition, divided
this [Northwest] Territory into two separate governments.
Indiana Territory was created, with its capital at St.
Vincennes, and from that portion of the Northwest Territory
west of a line beginning opposite the mouth of the Kentucky
River in Kentucky, and running north to the Canada line. The
eastern portion now became the 'Territory Northwest of the
river Ohio,' with its capital at Chillicothe. This portion,
November 29, 1802, was admitted into the Union. … The
territory northwest of the river Ohio ceased to exist as a
political division after the admission of the State of Ohio
into the Union, November 29, 1802, although in acts of
Congress it was frequently referred to and its forms affixed
by legislation to other political divisions."
_T. Donaldson,
The Public Domain,
pages 159-160._
ALSO IN:
_J. Burnet,
Notes on the Settlement of the Northwest Territory,
chapters 14-20._
_C. Atwater,
History of Ohio, period 2._
_J. B. Dillon,
History of Indiana,
chapters 19-31._
_W. H. Smith,
The St. Clair Papers,
volume 1, chapters 6-9._
NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
Indian war.
The disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair
and Wayne's decisive victory.
The Greenville Treaty.
"The Northwestern Indians, at Washington's installation,
numbered, according to varying estimates, from 20,000 to
40,000 souls. Of these the Wabash tribes had for years been
the scourge of the new Kentucky settlers. So constant, indeed,
was bloodshed and retaliation, that the soil of this earliest
of States beyond the mountains acquired the name of 'the dark
and bloody ground.' A broad river interposed no sufficient
barricade to these deadly encounters. … What with their own
inadmissible claims to territory, and this continuous war to
the knife, all the tribes of the Northwestern country were now
so maddened against the United States that the first
imperative necessity, unless we chose to abandon the Western
settlements altogether, was to chastise the Indians into
submission. … Brigadier-General Harmar, who commanded the
small force of United States regulars in the Territory, was …
a Revolutionary veteran. Our frontier military stations
extended as far as Vincennes, on the Wabash, which Major
Hamtranck, a Canadian Frenchman, commanded. The British
commandant was at Detroit, whence he communicated constantly
with the Governor-General of the provinces, Lord Dorchester,
by whose instigation the Northwestern Indians at this period
were studiously kept at enmity with the United States. … A
formidable expedition against the Indians was determined upon
by the President and St. Clair [Governor of the Northwest
Territory]; and in the fall of the year [1790] General Harmar
set out from Fort Washington for the Miami country, with a
force numbering somewhat less than 1,500, near three-fourths
of whom were militia raised in Western Pennsylvania and
Kentucky." Successful at first, the campaign ended in a
disastrous defeat on the Maumee.
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 2, section 1 (volume 1)._
"The remnant of his army which Harmar led back to Cincinnati
[Fort Washington] had the unsubdued savages almost continually
at their heels. As a rebuke to the hostile tribes the
expedition was an utter failure, a fact which was soon made
manifest. Indian attacks on the settlers immediately became
bolder. … Every block house in the territory was soon almost
in a state of siege. … Washington was authorized to raise an
army of 3,000 men for the protection of the Northwest. The
command of this army was given to St. Clair. At the same time
a corps of Kentucky volunteers was selected and placed under
General Charles Scott. The Kentuckians dashed into the Wabash
country, scattered the Indians, burned their villages and
returned with a crowd of prisoners. The more pretentious
expedition of St. Clair was not to be accomplished with so
fine a military flourish. Like Harmar's army, that led by St.
Clair was feeble in discipline, and disturbed by jealousies.
The agents of the Government equipped the expedition in a
shameful manner, delivering useless muskets, supplying powder
that would scarcely burn, and neglecting entirely a large
number of necessary supplies; so that after St. Clair with his
2,300 regulars and 600 militia had marched from Ludlow's
Station, north of Cincinnati, he found himself under the
necessity of delaying the march to secure supplies. The
militia deserted in great numbers. For the purpose of
capturing deserters and bringing up belated supplies, one of
the best regiments in the army was sent southward. While
waiting on one of the branches of the Wabash for the return of
this regiment the main force was on the fourth of November,
1791, surrounded and attacked by the lurking Indians. At the
first yell of the savages scores of the terrified militia
dropped their guns and bolted. St. Clair, who for some days
had been too ill to sit upon a horse, now exerted all his
strength in an effort to rally the wavering troops. His horses
were all killed, and his hat and clothing were ripped by the
bullets. But the lines broke, the men scattered and the
artillery was captured. Those who stood their ground fell in
their tracks till the fields were covered by 600 dead and
dying men. At last a retreat was ordered. … For many miles,
over a track littered with coats, hats, boots and powder
horns, the whooping victors chased the routed survivors of St.
Clair's army. It was a ghastly defeat. The face of every
settler in Ohio blanched at the news. Kentucky was thrown into
excitement and even Western Pennsylvania nervously petitioned
for protection. St. Clair was criticised and insulted. A
committee of Congress found him without blame. But he had been
defeated, and no amount of reasoning could unlink his name from
the tragedy of the dark November morning.
{2384}
Every effort was made to win over the Indians before making
another use of force. The Government sent peace messengers
into the Northwest. In one manner or another nearly every one
of the messengers was murdered. The Indians who listened at
all would hear of no terms of peace that did not promise the
removal of the whites from the northern side of the Ohio. The
British urged the tribes to make this extreme demand. Spain
also sent mischief-makers into the camps of the exultant red
men. … More bloodshed became inevitable; and in execution of
this last resort came one of the most popular of the
Revolutionary chieftains—'Mad Anthony' Wayne. Wayne led his
army from Cincinnati in October of 1793. He advanced carefully
in the path taken by St. Clair, found and buried the bones of
St. Clair's 600 lost, wintered at Greenville, and in the
summer of 1794 moved against the foe with strong
reinforcements from Kentucky. After a preliminary skirmish
between the Indians and the troops, Wayne, in accordance with
his instructions, made a last offer of peace. The offer was
evasively met, and Wayne pushed on. On the morning of
Wednesday the twentieth of August, 1794, the 'legion' came
upon the united tribes of Indians encamped on the north bank
of the Maumee and there, near the rapids of the Maumee, the
Indians were forced to face the most alert and vigorous enemy
they had yet encountered. The same daring tactics that had
carried Stony Point and made Anthony Wayne historic were here
directed against the Indian's timber coverts. … Encouraging
and marshaling the Indians were painted Canadian white men
bearing British arms. Many of these fell in the heaps of dead
and some were captured. When Wayne announced his victory he
declared that the Indian loss was greater than that incurred
by the entire Federal army in the war with Great Britain. Thus
ended the Indian reign of terror. After destroying the Indian
crops and possessions, in sight of the British fort, Wayne
fell back to Greenville and there made the celebrated treaty
by which on August 3, 1795, the red men came to a permanent
peace with the Thirteen Fires. From Cincinnati to Campus
Martius Wayne's victory sent a thrill of relief. The treaty,
ceding to the Union two thirds of the present State,
guaranteed the safety of all settlers who respected the
Indians' rights, and set in motion once more the machinery of
immigration."
_A. Black,
The Story of Ohio,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_A. St. Clair,
Narrative of Campaign._
_C. W. Butterfield,
History of the Girtys,
chapters 23-30._
_W. H. Smith,
The St. Clair Papers,
volume 2._
_W. L. Stone,
Life of Brant,
volume 2, chapters 10-12._
NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1811.
Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his League.
Battle of Tippecanoe.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
----------NORTHWEST TERRITORY: End--------
NORTHWESTERN OR OREGON BOUNDARY QUESTION, Settlement of the.
See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846,
and ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
NORTHWESTERN OR SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.
See SAN JUAN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.
NORTHWESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA, English Acquisition of the.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
NORUMBEGA.
"Norembega, or Norumbega, more properly called Arambec
(Hakluyt, III. 167), was, in Ramusio's map, the country
embraced within Nova Scotia, southern New Brunswick, and a
part of Maine. De Laet confines it to a district about the
mouth of the Penobscot. Wytfleit and other early writers say
that it had a capital city of the same name; and in several
old maps this fabulous metropolis is laid down, with towers
and churches, on the river Penobscot. The word is of Indian
origin."
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 1, foot-note._
On Gastaldi's map, of New France, made in 1550, "the name 'La
Nuova Francia' is written in very large letters, indicating
probably that this name is meant for the entire country. The
name 'Terra de Nurumbega' is written in smaller letters, and
appears to be attached only to the peninsula of Nova Scotia.
Crignon, however, the author of the discourse which this map
is intended to illustrate, gives to this name a far greater
extent. He says: 'Going beyond the cape of the Bretons, there
is a country contiguous to this cape, the coast of which
trends to the west a quarter southwest to the country of
Florida, and runs along for a good 500 leagues; which coast
was discovered fifteen years ago by Master Giovanni da
Verrazano, in the name of the king of France and of Madame la
Regente; and this country is called by many 'La Francese,' and
even by the Portuguese themselves; and its end is toward
Florida under 78° W., and 38° N. … The country is named by the
inhabitants 'Nurumbega'; and between it and Brazil is a great
gulf, in which are the islands of the West Indies, discovered
by the Spaniards. From this it would appear that, at the time
of the discourse, the entire east coast of the United States,
as far as Florida, was designated by the name of Nurumbega.
Afterwards, this name was restricted to New England; and, at a
later date, it was applied only to Maine, and still later to
the region of the Penobscot. … The name 'Norumbega,' or
'Arambec,' in Hakluyt's time, was applied to Maine, and
sometimes to the whole of New England."
_J. G. Kohl,
History of the Discovery of Maine
(Maine Historical Society Collection,
series 2, volume 1), pages 231 and 283._
"The story of Norumbega is invested with the charms of fable
and romance. The name is found in the map of Hieronimus da
Verrazano of 1529, as 'Aranbega,' being restricted to a
definite and apparently unimportant locality. Suddenly, in
1539, Norumbega appears in the narrative of the Dieppe Captain
as a vast and opulent region, extending from Cape Breton to
the Cape of Florida. About three years later Allefonsce
described the 'River of Norumbega,' now identified with the
Penobscot, and treated the capital of the country as an
important market for the trade in fur. Various maps of the
period of Allefonsce confine the name of Norumbega to a
distinct spot; but Gastaldi's map, published by Ramusio in
1556,—though modelled after Verrazano's, of which indeed it is
substantially an extract,—applies the name to the region lying
between Cape Breton and the Jersey coast. From this time until
the seventeenth century Norumbega was generally regarded as
embracing all New England, and sometimes portions of Canada,
though occasionally the country was known by other names.
{2385}
Still, in 1582, Lok seems to have thought that the Penobscot
formed the southern boundary of Norumbega, which he shows on
his map as an island; while John Smith, in 1620, speaks of
Norumbega as including New England and the region as far south
as Virginia. On the other hand Champlain, in 1605, treated
Norumbega as lying within the present territory of Maine. He
searched for its capital on the banks of the Penobscot, and as
late as 1669 Heylin was dreaming of the fair city of
Norumbega. Grotius, for a time at least, regarded the name as
of Old Northern origin and connected with 'Norbergia.' It was
also fancied that a people resembling the Mexicans once lived
upon the banks of the Penobscot. Those who have labored to
find an Indian derivation for the name say that it means 'the
place of a fine city.' At one time the houses of the city were
supposed to be very splendid, and to be supported upon pillars
of crystal and silver."
_B. F. De Costa,
Norumbega and its English Explorers
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 6)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Winsor,
Cartography of North East Coast of America,
(N. and C. History of America,
volume 4, chapter 2)._
NORWAY.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
NOSE MONEY.
A poll-tax levied among the ancient Scandinavians seems to
have borne this name because a defaulting tax-payer might
suffer the loss of his nose, and the Danes in Ireland are
thought to have imposed the same there.
_T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
volume 2, chapter 17._
NOTABLES, The Assembly of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
NOTIUM, Battle of (B. C. 407).
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
NOTTOWAYS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
----------NOVA SCOTIA: Start--------
NOVA SCOTIA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1000.
Supposed identity with the Markland of Norse sagas.
See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.
NOVA SCOTIA: 16th century.
Embraced in the Norumbega of the old geographers.
See NORUMBEGA;
also CANADA: NAMES.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1603-1608.
The first French settlements, at Port Royal (Annapolis).
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605; and 1606-1608.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1604.
Origin of the name Acadia.
In 1604, after the death of De Chastes, who had sent out
Champlain on his first voyage to Canada, Pierre du Guast,
Sieur de Monts, took the enterprise in hand and "petitioned
the king for leave to colonize La Cadie, or Acadie, a region
defined as extending from the 40th to the 46th degree of north
latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal. … De Monts
gained his point. He was made Lieutenant-General in Acadia. …
This name is not found in any earlier public document. It was
afterwards restricted to the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but the
dispute concerning the limits of Acadia was a proximate cause
of the war of 1755. The word is said to be derived from the
Indian Aquoddiauke, or Aquoddie, supposed to mean the fish
called a pollock. The Bay of Passamaquoddy, 'Great Pollock
Water,' if we may accept the same authority, derives its name
from the same origin, Potter in 'Historical Magazine,' I. 84.
This derivation is doubtful. The Micmac word, 'Quoddy,'
'Kady,' or 'Cadie,' means simply a place or region, and is
properly used in conjunction with some other noun; as, for
example, 'Katakady,' the Place of Eels. … Dawson and Rand, in
'Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal.'"
_F. Parkman,
Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,
chapter 2, and foot-note._
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1610-1613.
The Port Royal colony revived,
but destroyed by the English of Virginia.
See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.
English grant to Sir William Alexander.
Cession to France.
Quarrels of La Tour and D'Aulnay.
English reconquest and recession to France.
"In 1621, Sir William Alexander, a Scotchman of some literary
pretensions, had obtained from King James [through the Council
for New England, or Plymouth Company—see NEW ENGLAND: A. D.
1621-1631] a charter, (dated September 10, 1621) for the
lordship and barony of New Scotland, comprising the territory
now known as the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Under this grant he made several unsuccessful attempts at
colonization; and in 1625 he undertook to infuse fresh life
into his enterprise by parcelling out the territory into
baronetcies. Nothing came of the scheme, and by the treaty of
St. Germains, in 1632, Great Britain surrendered to France all
the places occupied by the English within these limits. Two
years before this, however, Alexander's rights in a part of
the territory had been purchased by Claude and Charles de la
Tour; and shortly after the peace the Chevalier Razilly was
appointed by Louis XIII. governor of the whole of Acadia. He
designated as his lieutenants Charles de la Tour for the
portion east of the St. Croix, and Charles de Menou, Sieur
d'Aulnay-Charnisé, for the portion west of that river. The
former established himself on the River St. John, where the
city of St. John now stands, and the latter at Castine, on the
eastern shore of Penobscot Bay. Shortly after his appointment,
La Tour attacked and drove away a small party of Plymouth men
who had set up a trading-post at Machias; and in 1635 D'Aulnay
treated another party of the Plymouth colonists in a similar
way. In retaliation for this attack, Plymouth hired and
despatched a vessel commanded by one Girling, in company with
their own barque, with 20 men under Miles Standish, to
dispossess the French; but the expedition failed to accomplish
anything. Subsequently the two French commanders quarrelled,
and, engaging in active hostilities, made efforts (not
altogether unsuccessful) to enlist Massachusetts in their
quarrel. For this purpose La Tour visited Boston in person in
the summer of 1643, and was hospitably entertained. He was not
able to secure the direct cooperation of( Massachusetts; but
he was permitted to hire four vessels and a pinnace to aid him
in his attack on D'Aulnay. The expedition was so far
successful as to destroy a mill and some standing corn
belonging to his rival. In the following year La Tour made a
second visit to Boston for further help; but he was able only
to procure the writing of threatening letters from the
Massachusetts authorities to D'Aulnay. Not long after La
Tour's departure from Boston, envoys from D'Aulnay arrived
here; and after considerable delay a treaty was signed
pledging the colonists to neutrality, which was ratified by
the Commissioners of the United Colonies in the following
year; but it was not until two years later that it was
ratified by new envoys from the crafty Frenchman.
{2386}
In this interval D'Aulnay captured by assault La Tour's fort
at St. John, securing booty to a large amount; and a few weeks
afterward Madame la Tour, who seems to have been of a not less
warlike turn than her husband, and who had "bravely defended
the fort, died of shame and mortification. La Tour was reduced
to the last extremities; but he finally made good his losses,
and in 1653 he married the widow of his rival, who had died
two or three years before. In 1654, in accordance with secret
instructions from Cromwell, the whole of Acadia was subjugated
by an English force from Boston under the command of Major
Robert Sedgwick, of Charlestown, and Captain John Leverett, of
Boston. To the latter the temporary government of the country
was intrusted. Ineffectual complaints of this aggression were
made to the British government; but by the treaty of
Westminster, in the following year, England was left in
possession, and the question of title was referred to
commissioners. In 1656 it was made a province by Cromwell, who
appointed Sir Thomas Temple governor, and granted the whole
territory to Temple and to one William Crown and Stephen de la
Tour, son of the late governor. The rights of the latter were
purchased by the other two proprietors, and Acadia remained in
possession of the English until the treaty of Breda, in 1668,
when it was ceded to France with undefined limits. Very little
was done by the French to settle and improve the country."
_C. C. Smith,
Acadia
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 4, chapter 4)._
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1690-1692.
Temporary conquest by the Massachusetts colonists.
Recovery by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1710.
Final conquest by the English and change of name.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713.
Relinquished to Great Britain.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
and CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.
Troubles with the French inhabitants—the Acadians.
Their refusal to swear allegiance.
Hostilities with the Indians.
"It was evident from the first that the French intended to
interpret the cession of Acadia in as restricted a sense as
possible, and that it was their aim to neutralize the power of
England in the colony, by confining it within the narrowest
limits. The inhabitants numbered some 2,500 at the time of the
treaty of Utrecht, divided into three principal settlements at
Port Royal, Mines, and Chignecto. The priests at these
settlements during the whole period from the treaty of Utrecht
to the expulsion of the Acadians were, with scarcely an
exception, agents of the French Government, in their pay, and
resolute opponents of English rule. The presence of a powerful
French establishment at Louisburg, and their constant
communications with Canada, gave to the political teachings of
those priests a moral influence, which went far towards making
the Acadians continue faithful to France. They were taught to
believe that they might remain in Acadia, in an attitude of
scarcely concealed hostility to the English Government, and
hold their lands and possessions as neutrals, on the condition
that they should not take up arms either for the French or
English. … By the 14th article of the treaty of Utrecht, it
was stipulated 'that the subjects of the King of France may
have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other
place, with all their movable effects. But those who are
willing to remain, and to be subject to the King of Great
Britain, "are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion
according to the usages of the church of Rome, as far as the
laws of Great Britain do allow the same.' … It was never
contemplated that the Acadians should establish themselves in
the country a colony of enemies of British power, ready at all
times to obstruct the authority of the government, and to make
the possession of Acadia by England merely nominal. … Queen
Anne died in August, 1714, and in January, 1715, Messrs.
Capoon and Button were commissioned by Governor Nicholson to
proceed in the sloop of war Caulfield to Mines, Chignecto,
River St. John, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, to proclaim King
George, and to tender and administer the oaths of allegiance
to the French inhabitants. The French refused to take the
oaths, and some of the people of Mines made the pretence that
they intended to withdraw from the colony. … A year later the
people of Mines notified Caulfield [Lieutenant-Governor] that
they intended to remain in the country, and at this period it
would seem that most of the few French inhabitants who
actually left the Province had returned. Caulfield then
summoned the inhabitants of Annapolis, and tendered them the
oath of allegiance, but with no better success than his
deputies had met at Mines and Chignecto. … General Phillips,
who became Governor of Nova Scotia in 1717, and who arrived in
the Province early in 1720, had no more success than his
predecessors in persuading the Acadians to take the oaths.
Every refusal on their part only served to make them more bold
in defying the British authorities. … They held themselves in
readiness to take up arms against the English the moment war
was declared between the two Crowns, and to restore Acadia to
France. But, as there was a peace of thirty years duration
between France and England after the treaty of Utrecht, there
was no opportunity of carrying this plan into effect.
Vaudreuil, Governor of Canada, however, continued to keep the
Acadians on the alert by means of his agents, and the Indians
were incited to acts of hostility against the English, both in
Acadia and Maine. The first difficulty occurred at Canso in
1720, by a party of Indians assailing the English fishermen
there. … The Indians were incited to this attack by the French
of Cape Breton, who were annoyed at one of their vessels being
seized at Canso by a British war vessel for illegal fishing. …
The Indians had indeed some reason to be disquieted, for the
progress of the English settlements east of the Kennebec
filled them with apprehensions. Unfortunately the English had
not been always so just in their dealings with them that they
could rely entirely on their forbearance. The Indians claimed
their territorial rights in the lands over which the English
settlements were spreading; the French encouraged them in this
claim, alleging that they had never surrendered this territory
to the English. While these questions were in controversy the
Massachusetts authorities were guilty of an act which did not
tend to allay the distrust of the Indians.
{2387}
This was nothing less than an attempt to seize the person of
Father Ralle, the Jesuit missionary at Norridgewock. He,
whether justly or not, was blamed for inciting the Indians to
acts of hostility, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to
the English." The attempt to capture Father Ralle, at
Norridgewock, which was made in December, 1721, and which
failed, exasperated the Indians, and "in the summer of 1722 a
war commenced, in which all the Indian tribes from Cape Canso
to the Kennebec were involved. The French could not openly
take part in the war, but such encouragement and assistance as
they could give the Indians secretly they freely supplied."
This war continued until 1725, and cost the lives of many of
the colonists of New England and Nova Scotia. Its most serious
event was the destruction of Norridgewock and the barbarous
murder of Father Ralle, by an expedition from Massachusetts in
the summer of 1724. In November, 1725, a treaty of peace was
concluded, the Indians acknowledging the sovereignty of King
George. After the conclusion of the Indian war, the
inhabitants of Annapolis River took a qualified oath of
allegiance, with a clause exempting them from bearing arms. At
Mines and Chignecto they still persisted in their refusal; and
when, on the death of George I. and the accession of George
II., the inhabitants of Annapolis were called upon to renew
their oath, they also refused again. In 1729 Governor Phillips
returned to the province and had great success during the next
year in persuading the Acadians, with a few exceptions only
throughout the French settlements, to take an oath of
allegiance without any condition as to the bearing or not
bearing of arms. "The Acadians afterwards maintained that when
they took this oath of allegiance, it was with the
understanding that a clause was to be inserted, relieving them
from bearing arms. The statement was probably accurate, for
that was the position they always assumed, but the matter
seems to have been lost sight of, and so for the time the
question of oaths, which had been such a fertile cause of
discord in the Province, appeared to be set at rest."
_J. Hannay,
History of Acadia,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
pages 114-121._
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1744-1748.
The Third Intercolonial War (King George's War).
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745;
and 1745-1748.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Futile discussion of boundary questions.
The Acadian "Neutrals" and their conduct.
The founding of Halifax.
Hostilities renewed.
"During the nominal peace which followed the Treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, the representatives of the two governments
were anxiously engaged in attempting to settle by actual
occupation the question of boundaries, which was still left
open by that treaty. It professed to restore the boundaries as
they had been before the war; and before the war the entire
basin of the Mississippi, as well as the tract between the St.
Lawrence River and Gulf, the Bay of Fundy, and the Kennebec,
was claimed by both nations, with some show of reason, as no
convention between them had ever defined the rights of each.
Names had been given to vast tracts of land whose limits were
but partly defined, or at one time defined in one way, at
another time in another, and when these names were mentioned
in treaties they were understood by each party according to
its own interest. The treaty of 1748, therefore, not only left
abundant cause for future war, but left occasion for the
continuance of petty border hostilities in time of nominal
peace. Commissioners were appointed, French and English, to
settle the question of the disputed territory, but the
differences were too wide to be adjusted by anything but
conquest. While the most important question was that of the
great extent of territory at the west, and … both nations were
devising means for establishing their claims to it, Acadia, or
Nova Scotia, was the scene of a constant petty warfare. The
French were determined to restrict the English province to the
peninsula now known by that name. The Governor of Canada sent
a "few men under Boishebert to the mouth of the St. John's to
hold that part of the territory. A little old fort built by
the Indians had stood for fifty years on the St. John's at the
mouth of the Nerepis, and there the men established
themselves. A larger number was sent under La Corne to keep
possession of Chignecto, on the isthmus which, according to
French claims, formed the northern boundary of English
territory. In all the years that England had held nominal rule
in Acadia, not a single English settlement had been formed,
and apparently not a step of progress had been taken in
gaining the loyalty of the inhabitants. A whole generation had
grown up during the time; but they were no less devoted to
France than their fathers had been. It was said that the king
of England had not one truly loyal subject in the peninsula,
outside of the fort at Annapolis. … Among the schemes
suggested for remedying this state of affairs, was one by
Governor Shirley [of Massachusetts], to place strong bands of
English settlers in all the important towns, in order that the
Government might have friends and influence throughout the
country. Nothing came of this; but in 1749 Parliament voted
£40,000 for the purpose of settling a colony. … Twenty-five
hundred persons being ready to go in less than two months from
the time of the first advertisement, the colony was entrusted
to Colonel Edward Cornwallis (uncle of the Cornwallis of the
Revolutionary War), and he was made Governor of Nova Scotia.
Chebucto was selected as the site of the colony, and the town
was named Halifax in honor of the president of the Lords of
Trade and Plantations [see, also, HALIFAX: A. D. 1749]. … In
July, a council was held at Halifax, when Governor Cornwallis
gave the French deputies a paper declaring what the Government
would allow to the French subjects, and what would be required
of them." They were called upon to take the oath of
allegiance, so often refused before. They claimed the
privilege of taking a qualified oath, such as had been
formerly allowed in certain cases, and which exempted them
from bearing arms. "They wished to stand as neutrals, and,
indeed, were often called so. Cornwallis replied that nothing
less than entire allegiance would be accepted. … About a month
later the people sent in a declaration with a thousand
signatures, stating that they had resolved not to take the
oath, but were determined to leave the country. Cornwallis
took no steps to coerce them, but wrote to England for
instructions."
{2388}
Much of the trouble with the Acadians was attributed to a
French missionary, La Loutre, who was also accused of inciting
the Indians to hostilities. In 1750, Major Lawrence was sent
to Chignecto, with 400 men, to build a block-house on the
little river Messagouche, which the French claimed as their
southern boundary. "On the southern bank was a prosperous
village called Beaubassin, and La Corne [the French commander]
had compelled its inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance
to the King of France. When Lawrence arrived, all the
inhabitants of Beaubassin, about 1,000, having been persuaded
by La Loutre, set fire to their houses, and, leaving behind
the fruits of years of industry, turned their backs on their
fertile fields, and crossed the river, to put themselves under
the protection of La Corne's troops. Many Acadians from other
parts of the peninsula also left their homes, and lived in
exile and poverty under the French dominion, hoping for a
speedy change of masters in Nova Scotia. … In the same year a
large French fort, Beau Séjour, was built on the northern side
of the Messagouche, and a smaller one, Gaspereaux, at Baie
Verte. Other stations were also planted, forming a line of
fortified posts from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the month of
the St. John's. … The commission appointed to settle the
question of boundaries had broken up without accomplishing any
results; and it was resolved by the authorities in Nova Scotia
and Massachusetts [1754] that an expedition should be sent
against Fort Beau Séjour. … Massachusetts … raised about 2,000
troops for the contemplated enterprise, who were under the
command of Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow. To this force were
added about 800 regulars, and the whole was placed under the
command of Lieutenant-Colonel Moncton. They reached Chignecto
on the 2d of June," 1755. The French were found unprepared for
long resistance, and Beau Séjour was surrendered on the 16th.
"After Beau Séjour, the smaller forts were quickly reduced.
Some vessels sent to the mouth of the St. John's found the
French fort deserted and burned. The name of Beau Séjour was
changed to Cumberland."
_R. Johnson.
History of the French War,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 5, chapter 11 (volume 5)._
_W. Kingsford,
History of Canada,
book 11, chapters 3 and 6 (volume 3)._
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
Frustrated naval expedition of the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.
The removal of the Acadians and their dispersion in exile.
"The campaign of the year 1755, which had opened in Nova
Scotia with so much success, and which promised a glorious
termination, disappointed the expectations and awakened the
fears of the Colonists. The melancholy and total defeat of the
army under General Braddock, while on his march against Fort
du Quesnè, threw a gloom over the British Provinces. Niagara
and Crown-point were not only unsubdued, but it was evident
that Governor Shirley would have to abandon, for this year at
least, the attempt; while Louisburg was reinforced, the
savages let loose upon the defenceless settlements of the
English, and the tide of war seemed ready to roll back upon
the invaders. Amidst this general panic, Governor Lawrence and
his Council, aided by Admirals Boscawen and Moystyn, assembled
to consider the necessary measures that were to be adopted
towards the Acadians, whose character and situation were so
peculiar as to distinguish them from every other people who
had suffered under the scourge of war. … It was finally
determined, at this consultation, to remove and disperse this
whole people among the British Colonies; where they could not
unite in any offensive measures, and where they might be
naturalized to the Government and Country. The execution of
this unusual and general sentence was allotted chiefly to the
New England Forces, the Commander of which [Colonel Winslow],
from the humanity and firmness of his character, was well
qualified to carry it into effect. It was, without doubt, as
he himself declared, disagreeable to his natural make and
temper; and his principles of implicit obedience as a soldier
were put to a severe test by this ungrateful kind of duty;
which required an ungenerous, cunning, and subtle severity. …
They were kept entirely ignorant of their destiny until the
moment of their captivity, and were overawed, or allured, to
labour at the gathering in of their harvest, which was
secretly allotted to the use of their conquerors."
_T. C. Haliburton,
Account of Nova Scotia,
volume 1, pages 170-175._
"Winslow prepared for the embarkation. The Acadian prisoners
and their families were divided into groups answering to their
several villages, in order that those of the same village
might, as far as possible, go in the same vessel. It was also
provided that the members of each family should remain
together; and notice was given them to hold themselves in
readiness. 'But even now,' he writes. 'I could not persuade
the people I was in earnest.' Their doubts were soon ended.
The first embarkation took place on the 8th of October [1755].
… When all, or nearly all, had been sent off from the various
points of departure, such of the houses and barns as remained
standing were burned, in obedience to the orders of Lawrence,
that those who had escaped might be forced to come in and
surrender themselves. The whole number removed from the
province, men, women, and children, was a little above 6,000.
Many remained behind; and while some of these withdrew to
Canada, Isle St. Jean, and other distant retreats, the rest
lurked in the woods, or returned to their old haunts, whence
they waged for several years a guerilla warfare against the
English. Yet their strength was broken, and they were no
longer a danger to the province. Of their exiled countrymen,
one party overpowered the crew of the vessel that carried
them, ran her ashore at the mouth of the St. John, and
escaped. The rest were distributed among the colonies from
Massachusetts to Georgia, the master of each transport having
been provided with a letter from Lawrence addressed to the
Governor of the province to which he was bound, and desiring
him to receive the unwelcome strangers. The provincials were
vexed at the burden imposed upon them; and though the Acadians
were not in general ill-treated, their lot was a hard one.
Still more so was that of those among them who escaped to
Canada. … Many of the exiles eventually reached Louisiana,
where their descendants now form a numerous and distinct
population. Some, after incredible hardship, made their way
back to Acadia, where, after the peace, they remained
unmolested. … In one particular the authors of the deportation
were disappointed in its results.
{2389}
They had hoped to substitute a loyal population for a
disaffected one; but they failed for some time to find
settlers for the vacated lands. … New England humanitarianism,
melting into sentimentality at a tale of woe, has been unjust
to its own. Whatever judgment may be passed on the cruel
measure of wholesale expatriation, it was not put in execution
till every resource of patience and persuasion had been tried
in vain."
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapter 8._
"The removal of the French Acadians from their homes was one
of the saddest episodes in modern history, and no one now will
attempt to justify it; but it should be added that the genius
of our great poet [Longfellow in 'Evangeline'] has thrown a
somewhat false and distorted light over the character of the
victims. They were not the peaceful and simple-hearted people
they are commonly supposed to have been; and their houses, as
we learn from contemporary evidence, were by no means the
picturesque, vine-clad, and strongly built cottages described
by the poet. The people were notably quarrelsome among
themselves, and to the last degree superstitious. They were
wholly under the influence of priests appointed by the French
bishops. … Even in periods when France and England were at
peace, the French Acadians were a source of perpetual danger
to the English colonists. Their claim to a qualified
allegiance was one which no nation then or now could sanction.
But all this does not justify their expulsion in the manner in
which it was executed."
_C. C. Smith,
The Wars on the Seaboard
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 7)._
"We defy all past history to produce a parallel case, in which
an unarmed and peaceable people have suffered to such an
extent as did the French Neutrals of Acadia at the hands of
the New England troops."
_P. H. Smith,
Acadia,
page 216._
ALSO IN:
_W. B. Reed,
The Acadian Exiles in Pennsylvania
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,
volume 6, pages 283-316)._
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
Cession by France to England confirmed in the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1763.
Cape Breton added to the government.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1782-1784.
Influx of Refugee Loyalists from the United States.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1820-1837.
The Family Compact.
See CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):
A. D. 1854-1866.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1867.
Embraced in the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1871.
The Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1877-1888.
The Halifax Fishery Award.
Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
Renewed Fishery disputes.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
----------NOVA SCOTIA: End--------
NOVANTÆ, The.
A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern counties of
Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, Scotland.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
NOVARA,
Battle of (1513).
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
NOVARA,
Battle of (1821).
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
NOVARA,
Battle of (1849).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
NOVELS OF JUSTINIAN.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
NOVEMBER FIFTH.
See Guy FAWKES' DAY.
----------NOVGOROD: Start--------
NOVGOROD: Origin.
See RUSSIA.
RUSSIANS: A. D. 862.
NOVGOROD: 11th Century.
Rise of the Commonwealth.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.
NOVGOROD: A. D. 1237-1478.
Prosperity and greatness of the city as a commercial republic.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
NOVGOROD: 14-15th Centuries.
In the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
----------NOVGOROD: End--------
NOVI, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
NOVIOMAGUS.
Modern Nimeguen.
See BATAVIANS.
NOYADES.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
NOYON, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
NUBIANS, The.
See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
NUITHONES, The.
See AVIONES.
----------NULLIFICATION: Start--------
NULLIFICATION:
First assertion of the doctrine
in the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
NULLIFICATION:
Doctrine and Ordinance in South Carolina.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
----------NULLIFICATION: End--------
NUMANTIAN WAR, The.
"In 143 B. C. the Celtiberians again appeared in the field
[resisting the Romans in Spain]; and when, on the death of
Viriathus, D. Junius Brutus had pushed the legions to the
Atlantic in 137 B. C., and practically subdued Lusitania, the
dying spirit of Spanish independence still held out in the
Celtiberian fortress city of Numantia. Perched on a
precipitous hill by the banks of the upper Douro, occupied
only by eight thousand men, this little place defied the power
of Rome as long as Troy defied the Greeks. … In 137 B. C. the
consul, C. Hostilius Mancinus, was actually hemmed in by a
sortie of the garrison, and forced to surrender. He granted
conditions of peace to obtain his liberty; but the senate
would not ratify them, though the young quæstor, Tiberius
Gracchus, who had put his hand to the treaty, pleaded for
faith and honour. Mancinus, stripped and with manacles on his
hands, was handed over to the Numantines, who, like the
Samnite Pontius, after the Caudine Forks, refused to accept
him. In 134 B. C. the patience of the Romans was exhausted;
Scipio was sent. … The mighty destroyer of Carthage drew
circumvallations five miles in length around the stubborn
rock, and waited for the result. The Virgilian picture of the
fall of Troy is not more moving than are the brave and ghastly
facts of the fall of Numantia. The market-place was turned
into a funeral pyre for the gaunt, famine-stricken citizens to
leap upon. … When the surrender was made only a handful of men
marched out."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapters 6-7._
See, also, LUSITANIA;
and SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
{2390}
NUMERIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 283-284.
----------NUMIDIA: Start--------
NUMIDIA: The Country and People.
See NUMIDIANS.
NUMIDIA: B. C. 204.
Alliance with Carthage.
Subjection to Rome.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
The Jugurthine War.
The Numidian kingdom, over which the Romans, at the end of the
second Punic War, had settled their friend Masinissa, passed
at his death to his son Micipsa. In 118 B. C. Micipsa died,
leaving two young sons, and also a bastard nephew, Jugurtha,
whom he feared. He divided the kingdom between these three,
hoping to secure the fidelity of Jugurtha to his sons. It was
a policy that failed. Jugurtha made sure of what was given to
him, and then grasped at the rest. One of his young cousins
was soon cleared from his path by assassination; on the other
he opened war. This latter, Adherbal by name, appealed to
Rome, but Jugurtha despatched agents with money to bribe the
senate, and a commission sent over to divide Numidia gave him
the western and better half. The commissioners were no sooner
out of Africa than he began war upon Adherbal afresh, shut him
up in his strong capital, Cirta [B. C. 112], and placed the
city under siege. The Romans again interfered, but, he
captured Cirta, notwithstanding, and tortured Adherbal to
death. The corrupt party at Rome which Jugurtha kept in his
pay made every effort to stifle discussion of his nefarious
doings; but one bold tribune, C. Memmius, roused the people on
the subject and forced the senate to declare war against him.
Jugurtha's gold, however, was still effectual, and it
paralyzed the armies sent to Africa, by corrupting the venial
officers who commanded them. Once, Jugurtha went to Rome,
under a safe conduct, invited to testify as a witness against
the men whom he had bribed, but really expecting to be able to
further his own cause in the city. He found the people furious
against him and he only saved himself from being forced to
criminate his Roman senatorial mercenaries by buying a
tribune, who brazenly vetoed the examination of the Numidian
king. Jugurtha being, then, ordered out of Rome, the war
proceeded again, and in 109 B. C. the command passed to an
honest general, Q. Metellus, who took with him Caius Marius,
the most capable soldier of Rome, whose capability was at that
time not half understood. Under Metellus the Romans penetrated
Numidia to Zama, but failed to take the town, and narrowly
escaped a great disaster on the Muthul, where a serious battle
was fought. In 107 B. C. Metellus was superseded by Marius,
chosen consul for that year and now really beginning his
remarkable career. Meantime Jugurtha had gained an ally in
Bocchus, king of Mauretania, and Marius, after two campaigns
of doubtful result, found more to hope from diplomacy than
from war. With the help of Sulla,—his future great rival—who
had lately been sent over to his army, in command of a troop
of horse, he persuaded the Mauretanian king to betray Jugurtha
into his hands. The dreaded Numidian was taken to Rome [B. C.
104], exhibited in the triumph of Marius, and then brutally
thrust into the black dungeon called the Tullianum to die of
slow starvation. Bocchus was rewarded for his treachery by the
cession to him of part of Numidia; Marius, intoxicated with
the plaudits of Rome, first saved it from the Cimbri and then
stabbed it with his own sword; Sulla, inexplicable harbinger
of the coming Cæsars, bided his time.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapters 26-29._
_Sallust,
Jugurthine War._
NUMIDIA: B. C. 46.
The kingdom extinguished by Cæsar and annexed to Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 47-46.
NUMIDIA: A. D. 374-398.
Revolts of Firmus and Gildo.
See ROME: A. D. 396-398.
----------NUMIDIA: End--------
NUMIDIANS AND MAURI, The.
"The union of the Aryan invaders [of North Africa] with the
ancient populations of the coast sprung from Phut gave birth
to the Mauri, or Maurusii, whose primitive name it has been
asserted was Medes, probably an alteration of the word
Amazigh. The alliance of the same invaders with the Getulians
beyond the Atlas produced the Numidians. The Mauri were
agriculturists, and of settled habits; the Numidians, as their
Greek appellation indicates, led a nomadic life."
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
In northern Africa, "on the south and west of the immediate
territory of the Carthaginian republic, lived various races of
native Libyans who are commonly known by the name of
Numidians. But these were in no way, as their Greek name
('Nomads') would seem to imply, exclusively pastoral races.
Several districts in their possession, especially in the
modern Algeria, were admirably suited for agriculture. Hence
they had not only fixed and permanent abodes, but a number of
not unimportant cities, of which Hippo and Cirta, the
residences of the chief Numidian princes, were the most
considerable."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
The various peoples of North Africa known anciently and
modernly as Libyans, Numidians, or Nomades, Mauri,
Mauritanians or Moors, Gaetulians and Berbers, belong
ethnographically to one family of men, distinguished alike
from the negroes and the Egyptians.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 13._
See, also, LIBYANS; CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND; and NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
NUNCOMAR AND WARREN HASTINGS.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
NUR MAHAL, OR NUR JAHAN, Empress of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
----------NUREMBERG: Start--------
NUREMBERG.
"Nuremberg (Nürnberg) (Norimberga) is situated on the Regnitz,
in the centre of Middle Franconia, about 90 miles northwest of
Munich, to which it is second in size and importance, with a
population of about 90,000. The name is said to be derived
from the ancient inhabitants of Noricum, who migrated hither
about the year 451, on being driven from their early
settlements on the Danube by the Huns. Here they distinguished
themselves by their skill in the working of metals, which
abound in the neighbouring mountains. Before the eleventh
century the history of Nuremberg is enveloped in a mist of
impenetrable obscurity, from which it does not emerge until
the time of the Emperor Henry III., who issued an edict, dated
July 16, 1050, 'ad castrum Noremberc,' a proof that it was a
place of considerable importance even at this early period.
Nuremberg afterwards became the favourite residence of the
Emperor Henry IV."
_W. J. Wyatt,
History of Prussia,
volume 2, page 456._
{2391}
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1417.
Office of Burgrave bought by the city.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1522-1524.
The two diets, and their recesses in favor of the Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1525.
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1529.
Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1532.
Pacification of Charles V. with the Protestants.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1632.
Welcome to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
Siege by Wallenstein.
Battle on the Fürth.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
NUREMBERG: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
----------NUREMBERG: End--------
NUYS, The Siege of
In 1474 Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, ambitious to
extend his dominions along the left bank of the Rhine, down to
the Netherlands, took advantage of a quarrel between the
citizens of Cologne and their prince-archbishop, to ally
himself with the latter. The citizens of Cologne had appointed
Herman of Hesse to be protector of the see, and he had
fortified himself at Nuys. Charles, with 60,000 men, laid
siege to the place, expecting to reduce it speedily. On the
contrary, he wasted months in the fruitless endeavor, and
became involved in the quarrel with the Swiss which brought
about his downfall. The abortive siege of Nuys was the
beginning of his disasters.
_C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 2, chapter 2._
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
NYANTICS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
NYSTAD, Peace of.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
O.
O. S.
Old Style.
See GREGORIAN CALENDAR.
OAK BOYS.
See. IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
OATES, Titus, and the "Popish Plot."
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
OBELISKS, Egyptian.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.
OBERPFALZ.
See FRANCONIA: THE DUCHY AND THE CIRCLE.
OBES, The.
See GERUSIA;
and SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
OBLATES, The.
"The Oblates, or Volunteers, established by St. Charles
Borromeo in 1578, are a congregation of secular priests. …
Their special aim was to give edification to the diocese, and
to maintain the integrity of religion by the purity of their
lives, by teaching, and by zealously discharging the duties
committed to them by their bishop. These devoted ecclesiastics
were much loved by St. Charles. … Strange to say, they do not
seem to have been much appreciated elsewhere."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 456._
OBNUNTIATIO.
See ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS.
OBOLLA.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
OBOLUS.
See TALENT.
OBOTRITES, The.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
OBRENOVITCH DYNASTY, The.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
OC, Langue d'.
See LANGUE D'OC.
OCANA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY BILL.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
OCEAN STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings of.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.
OCHLOCRACY.
This term was applied by the Greeks to an unlimited democracy,
where rights were made conditional on no gradations of
property, and where "provisions were made, not so much that
only a proved and worthy citizen should be elected, as that
everyone, without distinction, should be eligible for
everything."
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 1, chapter 3._
O'CONNELL, Daniel, The political agitations of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, to 1841-1848.
OCTAETËRIS, The.
See METON, THE YEAR OF.
OCTAVIUS, Caius (afterwards called Augustus),
and the founding of the Roman Empire.
See ROME: B. C. 44, after Cæsar's death,
to B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
OCTOBER CLUB, The.
See CLUBS: THE OCTOBER.
ODAL.
See ADEL.
ODELSRET.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY, TITLE V., ARTICLE 16.
ODELSTHING.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
ODENATHUS, The rule at Palmyra of.
See PALMYRA: THE RISE AND THE FALL.
ODEUM AT ATHENS, The.
"Pericles built, at the south-eastern base of the citadel, the
Odeum, which differed from the neighbouring theatre in this,
that the former was a covered space, in which musical
performances took place before a less numerous public. The
roof, shaped like a tent, was accounted an imitation of the
gorgeous tent pitched of old by Xerxes upon the soil of
Attica."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 3, chapter 3._
ODOACER, and the end of the line of Roman Emperors in the West.
See ROME: A. D. 455-476; and 488-526.
ODYSSEY, The.
See HOMER.
ŒA.
See LEPTIS MAGNA.
ŒCUMENICAL, OR ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL.
A general or universal council of the entire Christian Church.
Twenty such councils are recognized by the Roman Catholic
Church.
See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.
{2392}
ŒKIST.
The chief-founder of a Greek colonial city,—the leader of a
colonizing settlement, —was so entitled.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 47._
OELAND, Naval battle of (1713).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
ŒNOË, Battle of.
A battle of some importance in the Corinthian War, fought
about B. C. 388, in the valley of the Charander, on the road
from Argos to Mantinea. The Lacedæmonians were defeated by the
Argives and Athenians.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 5, chapter 4._
ŒNOPHYTA, Battle of (B. C. 456).
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
ŒNOTRIANS, The.
"The territory [in Italy] known to Greek writers of the fifth
century B. C. by the names of Œnotria on the coast of the
Mediterranean, and Italia on that of the Gulfs of Tarentum and
Squillace, included all that lies south of a line drawn across
the breadth of the country, from the Gulf of Poseidonia
(Pæstum) and the river Silarus on the Mediterranean Sea, to
the north-west corner of the Gulf of Tarentum. It was bounded
northwards by the Iapygians and Messapians, who occupied the
Salentine peninsula and the country immediately adjoining to
Tarentum, and by the Peuketians on the Ionic Gulf. … This
Œnotrian or Pelasgian race were the population whom the Greek
colonists found there on their arrival. They were known
apparently under other names, such as the Sikels [Sicels],
(mentioned even in the Odyssey, though their exact locality in
that poem cannot be ascertained) the Italians, or Itali,
properly so called—the Morgetes,—and the Chaones,—all of them
names of tribes either cognate or subdivisional. The Chaones
or Chaonians are also found, not only in Italy, but in Epirus,
as one of the most considerable of the Epirotic tribes. … From
hence, and from some other similarities of name, it has been
imagined that Epirots, Œnotrians, Sikels, &c., were all names
of cognate people, and all entitled to be comprehended under
the generic appellation of Pelasgi. That they belonged to the
same ethnical kindred there seems fair reason to presume, and
also that in point of language, manners, and character, they
were not very widely separated from the ruder branches of the
Hellenic race. It would appear, too (as far as any judgment
can be formed on a point essentially obscure) that the
Œnotrians were ethnically akin to the primitive population of
Rome and Latium on one side, as they were to the Epirots on
the other; and that tribes of this race, comprising Sikels and
Itali properly so called, as sections, had at one time
occupied most of the territory from the left bank of the river
Tiber southward between the Appenines and the Mediterranean."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
OESTERREICH.
See AUSTRIA.
ŒTA.
See THESSALY.
OFEN, Sieges and capture of (1684-1686).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
OFFA, King of Mercia, A. D. 758-794.
OFFA'S DYKE.
An earthen rampart which King Offa, of Mercia, in the eighth
century, built from the mouth of the Wye to the mouth of the
Tee, to divide his kingdom from Wales and protect it from
Welsh incursions. A few remains of it are still to be seen.
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain._
OGALALAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
OGAM.
See OGHAM.
OGDEN TRACT, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
OGHAM INSCRIPTIONS.
"In the south and south-western counties of Ireland are to be
found, in considerable numbers, a class of inscribed
monuments, to which the attention of Irish archæologists has
been from time to time directed, but with comparatively little
result. … They [the inscriptions] are found engraved on pillar
stones in that archaic character known to Irish philologists
as the Ogham, properly pronounced Oum, and in an ancient
dialect of the Gaedhelic (Gaelic). These monuments are almost
exclusively found in the counties of Kerry, Cork, and
Waterford, numbering, as far as I have been able to ascertain,
147; the rest of Ireland supplies 13. … Again it is worthy of
remark, that while 29 Irish counties cannot boast of an Ogham
monument, they have been found in England, Wales, and
Scotland. In Devonshire, at Fardel, a stone has been
discovered bearing not only a fine and well-preserved Ogham
inscription, but also one in Romano-British letters. It is now
deposited in the British Museum. … The Ogham letters, as found
on Megalithic monuments, are formed by certain combinations of
a simple short line, placed in reference to one continuous
line, called the fleasg, or stem line; these combinations
range from one to five, and their values depend upon their
being placed above, across, or below the stem line; there are
five consonants above, five consonants below, and five
consonants across the line, two of which, NG and ST are
double, and scarcely ever used. The vowels are represented by
oval dots, or very short lines across the stem line. … The
characters in general use on the monuments are 18 in number. …
It may be expected from me that I should offer some conjecture
as to the probable age of this mode of writing. This, I
honestly acknowledge, I am unable to do, even approximately. …
I am however decided in one view, and it is this, that the
Ogham was introduced into Ireland long anterior to
Christianity, by a powerful colony who landed on the
south-west coast, who spread themselves along the southern and
round the eastern shores, who ultimately conquered or settled
the whole island, imposing their language upon the aborigines,
if such preceded them."
_R. R. Brash,
Trans. Int. Cong. of Prehistoric Archæology, 1868._
ALSO IN:
_R. R. Brash,
Ogam Inscribed Monuments._
OGLETHORPE'S GEORGIA COLONY.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
OGULNIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 300.
OGYGIA.
See IRELAND: THE NAME.
----------OHIO: Start--------
OHIO:
The Name.
"The words Ohio, Ontario, and Onontio (or Yonnondio)—which
should properly be pronounced as if written 'Oheeyo,'
'Ontareeyo,' and 'Ononteeyo'—are commonly rendered 'Beautiful
River,' 'Beautiful Lake,' 'Beautiful Mountain.' This,
doubtless, is the meaning which each of the words conveys to
an Iroquois of the present day, unless he belongs to the
Tuscarora tribe. But there can be no doubt that the
termination 'īo' (otherwise written 'iyo,' 'iio,' 'eeyo,'
etc.) had originally the sense, not of 'beautiful,' but of
'great.' … Ontario is derived from the Huron 'yontare,' or
'ontare,' lake (Iroquois, 'oniatare'), with this termination.
… Ohio, in like manner, is derived, as M. Cuoq in the valuable
notes to his Lexicon (p. 159) informs us, from the obsolete
'ohia,' river, now only used in the compound form 'ohionha.'"
_H. Hale,
The Iroquois Book of Rites,
appendix, note B._
{2393}
OHIO: (Valley):
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
ALLEGHANS, DELAWARES, SHAWANESE.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1700-1735.
The beginnings of French Occupation.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1748-1754.
The first movements of the struggle
of French and English for possession.
"The close of King George's War was marked by an extraordinary
development of interest in the Western country. The
Pennsylvanians and Virginians had worked their way well up to
the eastern foot-hills of the last range of mountains
separating them from the interior. Even the Connecticut men
were ready to overleap the province of New York and take
possession of the Susquehanna. The time for the English
colonists to attempt the Great Mountains in force had been
long in coming, but it had plainly arrived. In 1748 the
Ingles-Draper settlement, the first regular settlement of
English-speaking men on the Western waters, was made at
'Draper's Meadow,' on the New River, a branch of the Kanawha.
The same year Dr. Thomas Walker, accompanied by a number of
Virginia gentlemen and a party of hunters, made their way by
Southwestern Virginia into Kentucky and Tennessee. … The same
year the Ohio company, consisting of thirteen prominent
Virginians and Marylanders, and one London merchant, was
formed. Its avowed objects were to speculate in Western lands,
and to carry on trade on an extensive scale with the Indians.
It does not appear to have contemplated the settlement of a
new colony. The company obtained from the crown a conditional
grant of 500,000 acres of land in the Ohio Valley, to be
located mainly between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers, and
it ordered large shipments of goods for the Indian trade from
London. … In 1750 the company sent Christopher Gist, a veteran
woodsman and trader living on the Yadkin, down the northern
side of the Ohio, with instructions, as Mr. Bancroft
summarizes them, 'to examine the Western country as far as the
Falls of the Ohio; to look for a large tract of good level
land; to mark the passes in the mountains; to trace the
courses of the rivers; to count the falls; to observe the
strength of the Indian nations.' Under these instructions,
Gist made the first English exploration of Southern Ohio of
which we have any report. The next year he made a similar
exploration of the country south of the Ohio, as far as the
Great Kanawha. … Gist's reports of his explorations added to
the growing interest in the over-mountain country. At that
time the Ohio Valley was waste and unoccupied, save by the
savages, but adventurous traders, mostly Scotch-Irish, and
commonly men of reckless character and loose morals, made
trading excursions as far as the River Miami. The Indian town
of Pickawillany, on the upper waters of that stream, became a
great centre of English trade and influence. Another evidence
of the growing interest in the West is the fact that the
colonial authorities, in every direction, were seeking to
obtain Indian titles to the Western lands, and to bind the
Indians to the English by treaties. The Iroquois had long
claimed, by right of conquest, the country from the Cumberland
Mountains to the Lower Lakes and the Mississippi, and for many
years the authorities of New York had been steadily seeking to
gain a firm treaty-hold of that country. In 1684, the
Iroquois, at Albany, placed themselves under the protection of
King Charles and the Duke of York [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1684];
in 1726, they conveyed all their lands in trust to England
[see NEW YORK: A. D. 1726], to be protected and defended by
his Majesty to and for the use of the grantors and their
heirs, which was an acknowledgment by the Indians of what the
French had acknowledged thirteen years before at Utrecht. In
1744, the very year that King George's War began, the deputies
of the Iroquois at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, confirmed to
Maryland the lands within that province, and made to Virginia
a deed that covered the whole West as effectually as the
Virginian interpretation of the charter of 1609 [see VIRGINIA:
A. D. 1744]. … This treaty is of the greatest importance in
subsequent history; it is the starting-point of later
negotiations with the Indians concerning Western lands. It
gave the English their first real treaty-hold upon the West;
and it stands in all the statements of the English claim to
the Western country, side by side with the Cabot voyages. …
There was, indeed, no small amount of dissension among the
colonies, and it must not be supposed that they were all
working together to effect a common purpose, The royal
governors could not agree. There were bitter dissensions
between governors and assemblies. Colony was jealous of
colony. … Fortunately, the cause of England and the colonies
was not abandoned to politicians. The time had come for the
Anglo-Saxon column, that had been so long in reaching them, to
pass the Endless Mountains; and the logic of events swept
everything into the Westward current. In the years following
the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle the French were not idle.
Galissonière, the governor of Canada, thoroughly comprehended
what was at stake. In 1749 he sent Cèloron de Bienville into
the Ohio Valley, with a suitable escort of whites and savages,
to take formal possession of the valley in the name of the
King of France, to propitiate the Indians, and in all ways
short of actual warfare to thwart the English plans. Bienville
crossed the portage from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, the
easternmost of the portages from the Lakes to the southern
streams ever used by the French, and made his way by the
Alleghany River and the Ohio as far as the Miami, and returned
by the Maumee and Lake Erie to Montreal. His report to the
governor was anything but reassuring. He found the English
traders swarming in the valley, and the Indians generally well
disposed to the English. Nor did French interests improve the
two or three succeeding years. The Marquis Duquesne, who
succeeded Galissonière, soon discovered the drift of events.
He saw the necessity of action; he was clothed with power to
act, and he was a man of action, And so, early in the year
1753, while the English governors and assemblies were still
hesitating and disputing, he sent a strong force by Lake
Ontario and Niagara to seize and hold the northeastern
branches of the Ohio. This was a master stroke: unless
recalled, it would lead to war; and Duquesne was not the man
to recall it.
{2394}
This force, passing over the portage between Presque Isle and
French Creek, constructed Forts Le Bœuf and Venango, the
second at the confluence of French Creek and the Alleghany
River."
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Perkins,
Annals of the West,
chapter 2._
_B. Fernow
The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days,
chapter 5._
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.
_O. H. Marshall,
De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749
(Historical Writings, pages 237-274)._
_N. B. Craig,
The Olden Time,
volume 1, pages 1-10._
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754.
The opening battle.
Washington's first campaign.
The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put
them during high water in easy communication by boat with the
Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and
where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition
would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened
the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all
he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of
his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn
Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor
of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of
December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of
Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort.
The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was
George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia
militia. Their business was to inform the French commander
that he was building forts on English territory, and that he
would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington
tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his
reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while
Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec.
It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached
Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie.
The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the
Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to
build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly,
forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted
£10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a
committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting
the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in
Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate
helper which it might, from its position, have become.
Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains
and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger
French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the
English retired. The French immediately began the erection of
Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of
Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with
tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to
support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel,
with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a
portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's
Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men
to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had
been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort,
marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who,
from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called
Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip
to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked
two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party
were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join
Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and
found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader,
Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were
taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for
English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne,
and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to
retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's
attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the
crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence
on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville
had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was
intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise,
this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The
English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for
reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some
entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from
Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and
Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found
himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an
independent company from South Carolina. Washington again
advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he
sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of
regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of
the French, the English leader again fell back to Great
Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of
July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was
now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy
day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the
combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's
accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched
out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his
weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their
backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now
waved."
_J. Winsor,
The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 8)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
Life of Washington,
volume 1, chapters 7-12._
_H. C. Lodge,
George Washington,
volume 1, chapter 3._
_N. B. Craig,
The Olden Time,
volume 1, pages 10-62._
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755.
Braddock's defeat.
The French possess the West and
devastate the English frontiers.
"Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous
measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A
campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio,
and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory.
The execution of this great design was intrusted to General
Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all
resistance.
{2395}
Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. …
He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it
was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a
sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but
he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the
pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than
strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had
found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe.
The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not
deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such
accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his
staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat,
gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at
Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such
reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march.
Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great
centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had
been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by
the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and
Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form
the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the
circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt
that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself
before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his
shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly
take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long
slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be
cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians.
Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no
further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and
carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was
required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly
forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a
day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill,
to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the
20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was
near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was
intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to
assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused
to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy
might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet
wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both
sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A
murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not
unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves
behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock,
clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of
battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and
lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot
down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted;
then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock,
vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off
the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never
got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the
established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he
murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke
again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed
and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about
one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England
and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."
_R. Mackenzie,
America: a history,
book 2, chapter 3._
"The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling.
The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. …
From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into
the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay
exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red
man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon
fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in
the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put
the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless
settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he
writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in
the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far,
we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the
Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex.
The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day
of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went
on."
_T. J. Chapman,
The French in the Allegheny Valley,
pages 71-73._
ALSO IN:
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
volume 1, chapters 7 and 10._
_W. Sargent,
History of Braddock's Expedition
(Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5)._
_N. B. Craig,
The Olden Time,
volume 1, pages 64-133._
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758.
Retirement of the French.
Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763.
The king's proclamation excluding settlers.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768.
Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.
The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782.
The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.
See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.
OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774.
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
The territorial claims of Virginia.
The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.
"On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had
planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west
of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the
war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both
reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until
they did so there could be within its borders no chance of
race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike,
the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the
tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision
was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had
wronged one another for a generation, and their interests
were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the
greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by
Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore.
{2396}
… The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke
out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known
by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her
charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South
Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously
granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay
within these lines, provided she could win it from the
Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been
made with the like large liberality, and it was found that
they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence
was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast,
where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of
Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and
indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the
south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect
was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing
about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania,
especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and,
in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein.
Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian
claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians
not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land,
but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the
Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it
was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in
Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and
lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from
Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so
far from being identical that they were usually diametrically
opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace
with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's
campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty
of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the
tendency of the whites to encroach on the great
hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the
Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort
Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while
it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the
northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly
have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what
they chose with any land that could be reached by their war
parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own
against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually
more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so
frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. …
The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the
outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad,
and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the
various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring
of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The
borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not
inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell
on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the
country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which
was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and
authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland
borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by
ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were
engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the
camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers
were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan
was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the
bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the
outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of
broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was
greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and
frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having;
they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved
him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to
his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward
Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling
a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were
preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians,
and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned
their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people
did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of
April a small party of men, women, and children, including
almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river
to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type],
as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum
to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The
whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly
drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated
criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At
once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded
themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres,
attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior.
… Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable
horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only
till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the
summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led
personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio,
accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division,
composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew
Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there,
at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the
Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a
great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war.
This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and
sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most
closely contested of any battle ever fought with the
northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over
a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in
numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the
northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the
Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the
settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West.
Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely
that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have
found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany
Mountains."
{2397}
For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs
Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent,
Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a
messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this
messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he
suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its
place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of
which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down
in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of
this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but
apparently with no good ground.
_T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapters 8-9.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11941_
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Perkins,
Annals of the West,
chapter 5._
_J. G. M. Ramsey,
Annals of Tennessee,
page 112._
_V. A. Lewis,
History of West Virginia,
chapter 9._
_J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke),
The Rear-guard of the Revolution,
chapter 4._
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774.
Embraced in the Province of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779.
Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia
General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky
District of Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786.
Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and
Connecticut.
Their cession to the United States,
except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784.
Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington,
Saratoga and Pelisipia.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788.
The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers
and their settlement at Marietta.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796.
Western Reserve of Connecticut.
Founding of Cleveland.
In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western
territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D.
1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract
"bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the
international line, east by the western boundary of
Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line
parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120
miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the
Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This
territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came
to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western
Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly
quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns
who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into
the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or
their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their
heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the
western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. …
The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the
aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the
soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as
'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.'
In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in
1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the
Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In
May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part
of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract
was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and
the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more
than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds
of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of
the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some
to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying
their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the
greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head.
September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and
association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land
Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is
called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the
company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent,
General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the
Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always
been white men on the site of the city that takes its name
from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city
was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its
first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a
heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
chapter 19, with foot-notes._
ALSO IN:
_C. Whittlesey,
Early History of Cleveland,
page 145, and after._
_H. Rice,
Pioneers of the Western Reserve,
chapters 6-7._
_R. King,
Ohio,
chapters 7-8._
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787.
The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory.
Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788.
The founding of Cincinnati.
See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.
OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795.
Indian war.
Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
and Wayne's decisive victory.
The Greenville Treaty.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802.
Organized as a separate Territory
and admitted to the Union as a State.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813.
Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit.
Winchester's defeat.
Perry's naval victory.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
OHIO: A. D. 1835.
Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.
See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.
OHIO: A. D. 1863.
John Morgan's Rebel Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).
----------OHIO: End--------
OHOD, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST; A. D. 609-632.
OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS;
also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
OKLAHOMA, The opening of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
OL., OR OLYMP.
See OLYMPIADS.
OLAF II.,
King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.
Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-
{2398}
1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.
Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.
Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.
Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.
Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.
OLBIA.
See BORYSTHENES.
OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
OLD COLONY, The.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
OLD DOMINION, The.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.
OLD IRONSIDES.
This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most
famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with
Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.
OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.
See ASSASSINS.
OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
----------OLD SARUM: Start--------
OLD SARUM:
Origin.
See SORBIODUNUM.
OLD SARUM:
A Rotten Borough.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
----------OLD SARUM: End--------
OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.
OLD STYLE.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
OLERON, The Laws of.
"The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island
adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to
Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had
occasion to mention them, have been able to find any
contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory
warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of
forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c.
copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more
immediately from those of Barcelona."
_D. Macpherson,
Annals of Commerce,
volume 1, page 358._
OLIGARCHY.
See ARISTOCRACY.
OLISIPO.
The ancient name of Lisbon.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
OLIVETANS, The.
"The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount
Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a
distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in
gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In
company with a few companions, he established himself in a
solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation
of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the
latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 3, page 149._
OLLAMHS.
The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.
OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
OLNEY, Treaty of.
A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut,
dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The
conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.
OLPÆ, Battle of.
A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the
Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general
Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the
shore of the Ambracian gulf.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2._
OLUSTEE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).
OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.
OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.
"The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having
originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth
year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and
celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted
in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and
consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of
Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the
first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the
olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer
solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be
understood that it corresponds only with the six last months
of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was
luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which
varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted
of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently
contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The
computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in
the year of Christ 440."
_Sir H. Nicolas,
Chronology of History,
pages 1-2._
OLYMPIC GAMES.
"The character of a national institution, which the
Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more
truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though
celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any
tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their
Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that
which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the
Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and,
from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name
of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which
intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The
origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity,
partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the
Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though,
however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to
magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little
attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times,
Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly
probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which
afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated
in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as
a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public
buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for
two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never
completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her
rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of
the games.
{2399}
… It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first
either consulted or expected to take any share in the
festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain
tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it
gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till
it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was
proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop
to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period
sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety.
During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course
regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it
without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the
festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only
from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies
in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not
brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private
interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations
which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity,
and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The
immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various
trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were
multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying
bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses
and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and
boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were
combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The
equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed
chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and
princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations
of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the
poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in
public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable
prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal;
but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves
of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only
meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly
the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a
multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of
the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world.
… The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called
at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the
victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by
themselves or their families, or at the expense of their
fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful
event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a
triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were
commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his
country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on
such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it
happened that sports, not essentially different from those of
our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture,
and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. …
Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement,
and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games
might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar
exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of
a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and
humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they
could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a
Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous
ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better
than barbarous shows."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10._
OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.
The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun
at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican
Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated
with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched
until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman
architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still
unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and
completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations
were laid.
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
volume 1, appendix 10._
OLYMPUS.
The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of
mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which
impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which
seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that
terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and
forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its
elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and
all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar
grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in
Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and
in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the
island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a
range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.
See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
----------OLYNTHUS: Start--------
OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379.
The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.
See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348.
War with Philip of Macedon.
Destruction of the city.
See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.
----------OLYNTHUS: End--------
OMAGUAS, The.
See EL DORADO.
OMAHAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY,
and SIOUAN FAMILY.
OMAR I.,
Caliph, A. D. 634-643.
Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.
OMER, OR GOMER, The.
See EPHAH.
OMMIADES,
OMEYYADES, The.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST:
A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.
OMNIBUS BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
ON.
"A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000
years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of
the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing
else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned
university which were the former glories of the place. … The
university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished
when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city
of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of
the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule,
that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician
studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An,
the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"
_R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
chapter 9._
{2400}
The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was
another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but
Hermonthis by the Greeks.
ONEIDAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603;
and 1607-1611.
ONONDAGAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.
ONTARIO:
The Name.
See OHIO: THE NAME.
ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.
See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.
ONTARIO, The province.
The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada,
received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the
Dominion of Canada was formed.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.
OODEYPOOR.
See RAJPOOTS.
OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
OPHIR, Land of.
The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the
Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent
historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion
reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the
true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the
mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of
Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original
Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern
Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.
OPIUM WAR, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
----------OPORTO: Start--------
OPORTO: Early history.
Its name given to Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.
OPORTO: A. D. 1832.
Siege by Dom Miguel.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.
----------OPORTO: End--------
OPPIAN LAW, The.
A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century,
B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or
more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the
use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or
town. It was repealed B. C. 194.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 16._
OPPIDUM.
Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place,
was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking
of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a
"stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where
they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an
invasion."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 19, note E (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Cæsar,
Gallic War,
book 5, chapter 21._
OPTIMATES.
"New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to
say when they were first used. We may probably refer the
origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One
party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of
the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by
the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it
to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were
the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue,
and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their
interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 20._
See ROME: B. C. 159-133.
ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
"Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there
were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable
without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from
his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of
leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for
individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the
Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the
most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos,
the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most
important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near
Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic
office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the
Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water:
here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of
Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of
soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes
were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the
Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the
oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated
seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a
series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which
this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the
lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles,
but of the whole nation. … With all the more important
sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial
administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd
management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by
advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual
revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they
were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons
as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as
wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the
sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of
the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The
oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of
public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the
authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of
mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of
personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as
through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was
possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an
influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of
colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and
with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The
oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not
only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they
were also its memory."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 4._
{2401}
"The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by
some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of
such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic
region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might
be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly
real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the
Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an
exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed
the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of
the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary
was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous
temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having
happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be
eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod,
placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
chapter 2, lecture 9._
----------ORAN: Start--------
ORAN: A. D. 1505.
Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
ORAN: A. D. 1563.
Siege, and repulse of the Moors.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:
----------ORAN: End--------
ORANGE, The Prince of:
Assassination.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.
ORANGE, The Principality.
"The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of
which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length
and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering
upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone;
and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous
Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end
of the 9th century. …"
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.
"In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of
one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction,
sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great
Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of
the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald
IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to
Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in
marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux.
These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary,
with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386;
and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the
brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services
rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more
particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind
him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had
the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one
only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French
court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby
the principality passed to that house which was made most
illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent,
Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of
Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the
principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of
Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited
to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti;
but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under
the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession
of the domain.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
_J. Breval,
History of the House of Nassau._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
Orange
(Historical Essays, volume 4)._
See, also, NASSAU.
ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.
See ARAUSIO.
ORANGE FREE STATE.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.
ORARIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
ORATORY, Congregation of the.
See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.
ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
ORCHA, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.
ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.
"In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was
designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to
limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and
as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the
consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much
might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. …
The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink.
By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation
was extended over the whole of Italy."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4)._
ORCHOMENOS.
See MINYI, THE.
ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).
See MITHRIDATIC WARS.
ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.
See HERCYNIAN.
ORDAINERS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.
ORDEAL, The.
"During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine
interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost
any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances,
could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early
as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple
purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St.
Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the
accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger,
and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had
sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial
refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the
evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut
material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the
principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained
were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or
through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of
cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the
cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in
cases of murder.
{2402}
Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous
interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some
depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance;
while others, again, derived their power from the influence
exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied
with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling
water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,'
'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the
application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a
mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling
point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find
a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter
portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in
trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the
elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the
triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ
frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a
miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of
things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the
superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive
into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."
_H. C. Lea,
Superstition and Force,
chapter 3._
See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.
ORDERS, Monastic.
See
AUSTIN CANONS;
BENEDICTINE ORDERS;
CAPUCHINS;
CARMELITE FRIARS;
CARTHUSIAN ORDER;
CISTERCIAN ORDER;
CLAIRVAUX;
CLUGNY;
MENDICANT ORDERS;
RECOLLECTS;
SERVITES;
THEATINES;
TRAPPISTS.
ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.
See KNIGHTHOOD.
ORDINANCE OF 1787.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.
ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER);
1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
ORDINANCES OF 1311.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.
ORDOÑO I.,
King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.
Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.
Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.
ORDOVICES, The.
One of the tribes of ancient Wales.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
----------OREGON: Start--------
OREGON:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY,
and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
OREGON: A. D: 1803.
Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
Grounds of American possession.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
OREGON: A. D. 1805.
Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.
"The territory along the Pacific coast lying between
California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it
was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for
some time between the United States and Great Britain. After
some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the
line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's
possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California
gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d
parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading
posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically
asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an
absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of
hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted
that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian
possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the
British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the
joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as
neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at
the time at all understood the value of the possession, then
entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had
remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built
great trading stations, and used the whole country in the
interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of
some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this
line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even
prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of
the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. …
The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge
caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the
frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their
children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles
on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great
canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of
the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound
their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored
by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every
kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of
hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great
water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia.
When American settlers were once in actual possession of the
disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great
Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration
did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any
aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land,
as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given
England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the
other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if
by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were
too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions.
Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the
settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and
additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by
a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful
attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the
Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the
termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be
given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was
not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men
went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with
the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the
British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the
British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the
Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four
forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to
insist upon this campaign boundary.
{2403}
To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent;
it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things
should be kept as they were until a fairly large American
population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus
put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else.
Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however
well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the
timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally
fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a
quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like
England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try
for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's
cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference,
had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in
the United States, that they in turn were delighted …;
accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the
Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered
compromise."
_T. Roosevelt,
Life of Thomas H. Benton,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159._
_Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other countries (edition of 1889),
page 438._
_W. Barrows,
Oregon._
OREGON: A. D. 1859.
Admission into the Union, with a constitution
excluding free people of color.
"The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to
the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that
afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a
constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though
the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of
the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were
seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of
color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable
that the reason why they excluded slavery from the
constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for
admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens
reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the
admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by
Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting
against its admission with a constitution so discriminating
against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but
the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103
in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.
_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
volume 2, chapter 49._
----------OREGON: End--------
OREJONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).
See AMAZONS RIVER.
ORESTÆ, The.
See MACEDONIA.
ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
ORIFLAMME, The.
"The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St.
Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as
'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any
military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown
effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was
supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis
the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities,
on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square
Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower
edge cut into three swallow-tails."
_E. Smedley,
History of France,
part 1, chapter 3, foot-note._
"The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed
on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a
gilt spear."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note._
ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
ORISKANY, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries.
The Norse Jarls.
See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.
ORLEANISTS.
See LEGITIMISTS.
ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.
----------ORLEANS, The House of: Start--------
ORLEANS, The House of:
Origin.
See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.
ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447.
Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
----------ORLEANS, The House of: End--------
----------ORLEANS, The City: Start--------
ORLEANS, The City:
Origin and name.
"The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards,
protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul,
and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point
by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had
taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror
of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
See, also, GENABUM.
ORLEANS, The City:
Early history.
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451.
Siege by Attila.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752.
A Merovingian capital.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429.
Deliverance by Joan of Arc.
In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford,
having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were
masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The
city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was
still held by the French, and its reduction was determined
upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of
vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the
hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc,
known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the
confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They
raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in
France from that day.
_Monstrelet,
Chronicles,
book 2, chapters 52-60._
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870.
Taken by the Germans.
Recovered by the French.
Again lost.
Repeated battles.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.
----------ORLEANS, The City: End--------
ORLEANS, The Territory of.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.
ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.
See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.
{2404}
OROPUS, Naval Battle at.
The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans
in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which
they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous
in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 8, section 95._
ORPHANS, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.
See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.
ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.
See SICYON.
ORTHES, Battle of (1814).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054;
also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
ORTOSPANA.
The ancient name of the city of Cabul.
ORTYGIA.
See SYRACUSE.
OSAGES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.
OSCANS, The.
"The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread
over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium
belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave
name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the
Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a
late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain
which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
introduction, section 2_.
See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.
OSCAR I.,
King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.
Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.
OSI, The.
See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.
OSISMI, The.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
OSMAN.
OSMANLI.
See OTHMAN.
OSMANLIS.
See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.
OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648.
Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
OSRHOËNE,
OSROËNE.
A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of
Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears
to have acquired its name and some little importance during
the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne
who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at
Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman
province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is
believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the
first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was
a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under
dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted
for its schools of theology.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 2._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 8 and 47._
_P. Smith,
History of the World,
volume 3 (American edition),
page 151._
OSSA AND PELION.
See THESSALY.
----------OSTEND: Start--------
OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
OSTEND: A. D. 1706.
Besieged and reduced by the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731.
The obnoxious Company.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.
OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748.
Taken by the French, and restored.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
----------OSTEND: End--------
OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
OSTIA.
Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber,
was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent
existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the
maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be
impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and
artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius,
Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They
were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In
the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially
restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The
ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two
miles from the sea shore.
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14._
OSTMEN.
See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.
OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799.(AUGUST-APRIL).
OSTRACISM.
"The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons
who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an
end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and
thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For
this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under
his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by
potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were
themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote
remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For
such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary
discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was
required. The honour and property of the exile remained
untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a
term of ten years."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
"The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in
the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the
people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not.
Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose
the proposal. The former they could only do by designating
particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom,
or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition
to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and
anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the
danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the
people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a
day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day
the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was
erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is
probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ.
Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person
he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. …
At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the
hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the
nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted
one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least
six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within
ten days at latest."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece,
part 3, chapter 3._
{2405}
OSTROGOTHS.
See GOTHS.
OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).
See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
OSTROVNO, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.
----------OSWEGO: Start--------
OSWEGO: A. D. 1722.
Fort built by the English.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
OSWEGO: A. D. 1755.
English position strengthened.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
OSWEGO: A. D. 1756.
The three forts taken by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
OSWEGO: A. D. 1759.
Reoccupied by the English.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796.
Retained by the English after peace with the United States.
Final surrender.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.
----------OSWEGO: End--------
OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.
OTADENI,
OTTEDENI, The.
One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the
Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were
the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the
"Attacotti."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume l._
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
OTFORD, Battle of.
Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the
Danish claimant of the English crown.
OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.
Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or
Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.
Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.
Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.
OTHO,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.
Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.
Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great),
King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973;
King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.
Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany),
King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.
Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002;
King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.
Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.
OTHRYS.
See THESSALY.
OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
OTOES,
OTTOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.
OTOMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.
OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).
See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
OTTAWA, Canada:
The founding of the City.
"In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the
Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful
city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers,
came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to
connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great
lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route
up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship
canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made
his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by
eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River.
'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the
centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a
large town."
_W. P. Greswell,
History of the Dominion of Canada,
page 168._
OTTAWAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS;
also PONTIAC'S WAR.
OTTERBURN, Battle of.
This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a
small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas
and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry
Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack
on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly
beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell
mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of
knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of
the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3,
chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the
famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the
Cheviot."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 26 (volume 3)._
OTTIMATI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
OTTO.
See OTHO.
OTTOCAR,
OTOKAR,
King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.
OTTOMAN EMPIRE.
See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.
OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
OTUMBA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.
OTZAKOF:
Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants
by the Russians (1788).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
OUAR KHOUNI, The.
See AVARS.
----------OUDE: Start--------
OUDE, OR OUDH.
"Before the British settler had established himself on the
peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire.
When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion
of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of
the servant was turned against the master, and little by
little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding
only an official, though an hereditary title, he still
acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had
shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of
Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of
British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not
necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable
in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in
the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the
Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money.
{2406}
But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of
soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient
for all the external and internal requirements of the State;
and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military
skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British
battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system,
one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we
established a Double Government of the worst kind. The
Political and Military government was in the hands of the
Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories
still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in
and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern
Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. …
Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse
disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part
of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it
was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain.
Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John
Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of
a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord
Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was
a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate
vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The
condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because
its government was bad and its people were wretched, but
because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to
our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and
destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for
good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it
was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and
irregularly paid native troops in the service of the
Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him
and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that
British troops should occupy their place. … The additional
burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a
million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources
had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy,
declared his inability to meet any further demands on his
treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it
was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he
could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be
ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of
the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding
the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British
troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen
submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty
was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half
of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue,
passed under the administration of the British Government.
Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two
Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his
reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be
carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the
prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the
lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at
the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity
to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.'
But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of
these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our
British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of
our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for
themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from
worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one
Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but
still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness,
and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were,
doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that
they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of
war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better
still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the
Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of
Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed
by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war,
Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his
great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time;
and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to
bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times
were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed
at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of
country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by
the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer,
to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded
and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British
favour and affection."
_J. W. Kaye,
History of the Sepoy War in India,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
"By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of
Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then
remaining territories, such a system of administration as
should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to
the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and
always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel
of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had
been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate
with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt
that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct.
The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar
beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the
'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true
picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges
against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. …
Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop
Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and
with their ears full of the current English talk about its
miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a
manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule,
however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy,
complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder
and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and
in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the
middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow"
between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part
with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel
Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow
were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were
openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new
disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems.
{2407}
The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high
repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were
ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and
riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore.
For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue
Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield
under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor,
Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to
have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this
step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment
of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been
warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had
declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his
country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to
be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the
Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February,
1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of
Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his
palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles
of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants,
yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by
officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of
surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"
_J. M. Ludlow,
British India,
part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Arnold,
The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._
_Sir W. W. Hunter,
The Marquess of Dalhousie,
chapter 8._
_W. M. Torrens,
Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
chapter 26._
OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765.
English war with the Nawab.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
----------OUDE: End--------
OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
----------OUDENARDE: Start--------
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659.
Taken by the French and restored to Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706.
Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708.
Marlborough's victory.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748.
Taken by the French, and restored.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.
----------OUDENARDE: End--------
OUDH.
See OUDE.
OUIARS,
OUIGOURS, The.
See AVARS.
OUMAS,
HUMAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.
OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.
This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of
Aragon, in 1317.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
volume 4, page 238 (American edition)._
OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
OVATION, The Roman.
See TRIUMPH.
OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.
OVILIA.
See CAMPUS MARTIUS.
OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
OXFORD, Provisions of.
A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the
English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The
king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it,
and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special
grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances
called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced
after some trouble in October 1259."
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
page 190._
The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six
years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by
the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both
sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the
Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of
France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled
them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the
award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England in the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Select Charters,
part 6._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.
"Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in
the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when
thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious;
and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual,
sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or
Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But
the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than
that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place
on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors
had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church
of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to
establish her essential identity with the Church of the
Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place
her for the first time since the Reformation in her true
position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. …
Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of
doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr.
Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness
and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine
Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of
the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism.
The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The
sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the
power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood.
{2408}
Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings.
… They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular
Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party.
They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the
Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and
Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and
Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness
of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under
the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive
creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more
opposite."
_H. O. Wakeman,
History of Religion in England,
chapter 11._
"The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to
establish first that the authority of the primitive Church
resided in the Church of England, and second, that the
doctrines of the English Church were really identical with
those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians'
second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the
Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion
[1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the
articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the
doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be
subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and
doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have
made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot,
Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author
to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular
dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to
accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove
that authority resided in the English Church, and authority,
in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his
interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman
resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but
he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the
Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The
bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the
author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured
to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against
him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance
in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the
attack was made, he had regarded his own position with
dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841,
a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised
authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with
Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an
abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church
further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see
was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a
few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been
reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew
from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into
communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for
want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the
control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 21 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Newman,
History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua)._
_J. H. Newman,
Letters and Correspondence to 1845._
_R. W. Church,
The Oxford Movement._
_W. Palmer,
Narrative of Events Connected with
the Tracts for the Times._
_T. Mozley,
Reminiscences._
_Sir J. T. Coleridge,
Life of John Keble._
OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.
OXGANG.
See BOVATE.
OXUS, The.
Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.
OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.
See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.
P.
PACAGUARA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
PACAMORA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
PACHA.
See BEY.
PACIFIC OCEAN:
Its Discovery and its Name.
The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean
was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien"
on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517).
"It was not for some years after this discovery that the name
Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long
time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it
retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it
lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early
maps is here significant. All along from this time to the
middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was
labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the
Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.'
Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in
contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or
the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was
then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by
that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as
does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in
1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography
of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar
Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes'
Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy,
1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455,
off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean,
both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of
the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595,
'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort';
De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del
Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,'
and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or
Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv.,
is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the
Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos
Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of
Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are
represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus.
{2409}
The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway
between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the
words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the
equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied.
Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of
water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of
Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero
call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find
that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy,
in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare
pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central
America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of
Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569
plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and
in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map
of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the
general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean,
the words being in large letters extending across the ocean
opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is
'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a
narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas,
His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare
Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note._
PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.
See POLAND: A. D. 1573.
PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
PADISCHAH.
See BEY; also CRAL.
----------PADUA: Start--------
PADUA: Origin.
See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.
PADUA: A. D. 452.
Destruction by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 452;
also VENICE: A. D. 452.
PADUA: 11-12th Centuries.
Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256:
The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano.
The Crusade against him.
Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.
See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338.
Submission to Can' Grande della Scala.
Recovery from his successor.
The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
PADUA: A. D. 1388.
Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
PADUA: A. D. 1402.
Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.
PADUA: A. D. 1405.
Added to the dominion of Venice.
See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.
PADUA: A. D. 1509-1513.
In the War of the League of Cambrai.
Siege by the Emperor Maximilian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
----------PADUA: End--------
PADUCAH: Repulse of Forrest.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).
PADUS, The.
The name by which the river Po was known to the Romans.
Dividing Cisalpine Gaul, as the river did, into two parts,
they called the northern part Transpadane and the southern
part Cispadane Gaul.
PÆANS.
"The pæans [among the ancient Greeks] were songs of which the
tune and words expressed courage and confidence. 'All sounds
of lamentation,' … says Callimachus, 'cease when the Ie Pæan,
Ie Pæan, is heard.' … Pæans were sung, not only when there was
a hope of being able, by the help of the gods, to overcome a
great and imminent danger, but when the danger was happily
past; they were songs of hope and confidence as well as of
thanksgiving for, victory and safety."
_K. O. Müller,
History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,
volume 1, page 27._
PÆONIANS, The.
"The Pæonians, a numerous and much-divided race, seemingly
neither Thracian nor Macedonian nor Illyrian, but professing
to be descended from the Teukri of Troy, … occupied both banks
of the Strymon, from the neighbourhood of Mount Skomius, in
which that river rises, down to the lake near its mouth. … The
Pæonians, in their north-western tribes, thus bordered upon
the Macedonian Pelagonia, —in their northern tribes upon the
Illyrian Dardani and Autariatæ,—in the eastern, southern and
south-eastern tribes, upon the Thracians and Pierians."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 25._
Darius, king of Persia, is said to have caused a great part of
the Pæonians to be transported to a district in Phrygia, but
they escaped and returned home.
PAGANISM: Suppressed in the Roman Empire.
See ROME: A. D. 391-395.
PAGE.
See CHIVALRY.
PAGUS.
See GENS, ROMAN;
also, HUNDRED.
PAIDONOMUS, The.
The title of an officer who was charged with the general
direction of the education and discipline of the young in
ancient Sparta.
_G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1._
PAINE, Thomas, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE)
KING GEORGE'S WAR MEASURES.
PAINTED CHAMBER.
See WESTMINSTER PALACE.
PAINTSVILLE, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
PAIONIANS, The.
See ALBANIANS.
PAIRS, Legislative.
See WHIPS, PARTY.
PAITA: A. D. 1740.
Destroyed by Commodore Anson.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
PAITA, The.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
PALACE, Origin of the name.
The house of the first of the Roman Emperors, Augustus, was on
the Palatine Hill, which had been appropriated by the nobility
for their residence from the earliest age of the republic. The
residence of Augustus was a quite ordinary mansion until A. U.
C. 748 (B. C. 6) when it was destroyed by fire. It was then
rebuilt on a grander scale, the people contributing, in small
individual sums—a kind of popular testimonial—to the cost.
Augustus affected to consider it public property, and gave up
a large part of it to the recreation of the citizens. His
successors added to it, and built more and more edifices
connected with it; so that, naturally, it appropriated to
itself the name of the hill and came to be known as the
Palatium, or Palace.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40._
PALÆOLITHIC PERIOD.
See STONE AGE.
{2410}
PALÆOLOGI, The.
The family which occupied the Greek imperial throne, at Nicæa
and at Constantinople, from 1260, when Michael Palæologus
seized the crown, until the Empire was extinguished by the
Turks in 1453.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 62 (Genealogical table)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir J. E. Tennant,
History of Modern Greece._
PALÆOPOLIS,
PALÆPOLIS.
See NEAPOLIS.
PALÆSTRA, The.
See GYMNASIA, GREEK.
PALAIS ROYAL, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.
PALATINE ELECTORATE.
The Palatine Electorate or Palatinate (Pfalz in German), arose
in the breaking up of the old Duchy of Franconia.
See FRANCONIA;
also PALATINE COUNTS,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1214.
Acquisition by the Wittelsbach or Bavarian House.
The House of Wittelsbach (or Wisselbach), which acquired the
Duchy of Bavaria in 1180, came also into possession of the
Palatinate of the Rhine in 1214 (see BAVARIA: A. D.
1180-1356). In the next century the two possessions were
divided. "Rudolph, the elder brother of Louis III. [the
emperor, known as Louis the Bavarian] inherited the County
Palatine, and formed a distinct line from that of Bavaria for
many generations. The electoral dignity was attached to the
Palatine branch."
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume I, page 424._
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
The Protestant Reformation.
Ascendancy of Calvinism.
"The Electors Palatine of the Rhine might be justly regarded,
during the whole course of the 16th century, as more powerful
princes than those of Brandenburg. The lower Palatine, of
which Heidelberg was then the capital, formed a considerable
tract of country, situate on the banks of the Rhine and the
Neckar, in a fertile, beautiful, and commercial part of
Germany. … The upper Palatinate, a detached and distant
province situated between Bohemia, Franconia, and Bavaria,
which constituted a part of the Electoral dominions, added
greatly to their political weight, as members of the Germanic
body. … Under Louis V., Luther began to disseminate his
doctrines at Heidelberg, which were eagerly and generally
imbibed; the moderate character of the Elector, by a felicity
rare in that age, permitting the utmost freedom of religious
opinion, though he continued, himself, to profess the Catholic
faith. His successors, who withdrew from the Romish see,
openly declared their adherence to Lutheranism; but, on the
accession of Frederic III., a new ecclesiastical revolution
took place. He was the first among the Protestant German
princes who introduced and professed the reformed religion
denominated Calvinism. As the toleration accorded by the
'Peace of religion' to those who embraced the 'Confession of
Augsburg,' did not in a strict and legal sense extend to or
include the followers of Calvin, Frederic might have been
proscribed and put to the Ban of the Empire: nor did he owe
his escape so much to the lenity or friendship of the
Lutherans, as to the mild generosity of Maximilian II., who
then filled the Imperial throne, and who was an enemy to every
species of persecution. Frederic III., animated with zeal for
the support of the Protestant cause, took an active part in
the wars which desolated the kingdom of France under Charles
IX.; protected all the French exiles who fled to his court or
dominions; and twice sent succours, under the command of his
son John Casimir, to Louis, Prince of Condé, then in arms, at
the head of the Hugonots."
_Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 2, pages 163-165._
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1608.
The Elector at the head of the Evangelical Union.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1619-1620.
Acceptance of the crown of Bohemia by the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1621-1623.
The Elector placed under the ban of the empire.
Devastation and conquest of his dominions.
The electoral dignity transferred to the Duke of Bavaria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1631-1632.
Temporary recovery by Gustavus Adolphus.
Obstinate bigotry of the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1632.
Death of Frederick V.
Treaty with the Swedes.
Nominal restoration of the young Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1648.
Division in the Peace of Westphalia.
Restoration of the Lower Palatinate to the old Electoral Family.
Annexation of the Upper to Bavaria.
The recreated electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1674.
In the Coalition against Louis XIV.
Ravaged by Turenne.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674; and 1674-1678.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1679-1680.
Encroachments by France upon the territory of the Elector.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1680.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1686.
The claims of Louis XIV. in the name of the Duchess of Orleans.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1690.
The second devastation and the War of the League of Augsburg.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Restitutions by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1705.
The Upper Palatinate restored to the Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A: D. 1709-1710.
Emigration of inhabitants to England,
thence to Ireland and America.
See PALATINES.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1714.
The Upper Palatinate ceded to the Elector of Bavaria
in exchange for Sardinia.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1801-1803.
Transferred in great part to Baden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1849.
Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
----------PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: Start--------
PALATINATES, American.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632;
NEW ALBION;
MAINE: A. D. 1639;
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
PALATINE, Counts.
In Germany, under the early emperors, after the dissolution of
the dominion of Charlemagne, an office came into existence
called that of the 'comes palatii'—Count Palatine. This office
was created in the interest of the sovereign, as a means of
diminishing the power of the local rulers.
{2411}
The Counts Palatine were appointed as their coadjutors, often
with a concurrent and sometimes with a sole jurisdiction.
Their "functions were more extensive than those of the ancient
'missi dominici.' Yet the office was different. Under the
Carlovingian emperors there had been one dignitary with that
title, who received appeals from all the secular tribunals of
the empire. The missi dominici were more than his mere
colleagues, since they could convoke any cause pending before
the ordinary judges and take cognisance of more serious cases
even in the first instance. As the missi were disused, and as
the empire became split among the immediate descendants of
Louis le Debonnaire, the count palatine (comes palatii) was
found inadequate to his numerous duties; and coadjutors were
provided him for Saxony, Bavaria, and Swabia. After the
elevation of Arnulf, however, most of these dignities ceased;
and we read of one count palatine only—the count or duke of
Franconia or Rhenish France. Though we have reason to believe
that this high functionary continued to receive appeals from
the tribunals of each duchy, he certainly could not exercise
over them a sufficient control; nor, if his authority were
undisputed, could he be equal to his judicial duties. Yet to
restrain the absolute jurisdiction of his princely vassals was
no less the interest of the people than the sovereign; and in
this view Otho I. restored, with even increased powers, the
provincial counts palatine. He gave them not only the
appellant jurisdiction of the ancient comes palatii, but the
primary one of the missi dominici. … They had each a castle,
the wardenship of which was intrusted to officers named
burgraves, dependent on the count palatine of the province. In
the sequel, some of these burgraves became princes of the
empire."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
volume 1, pages 120-121._
PALATINE, The Elector.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152;
and PALATINATE OF THE RHINE.
PALATINE, The English Counties.
"The policy of the Norman kings stripped the earls of their
official character. They ceased to have local jurisdiction or
authority. Their dignity was of a personal nature, and they
must be regarded rather as the foremost of the barons, and as
their peers, than as a distinct order in the state. … An
exception to the general policy of William [the Conqueror] as
to earldoms was made in those governments which, in the next
century, were called palatine. These were founded in Cheshire,
and perhaps in Shropshire, against the Welsh, and in the
bishopric of Durham both to oppose the Scots, and to restrain
the turbulence of the northern people, who slew Walcher, the
first earl bishop, for his ill government. An earl palatine
had royal jurisdiction within his earldom. So it was said of
Hugh, earl of Chester, that he held his earldom in right of
his sword, as the king held all England in right of his crown.
All tenants-in–chief held of him; he had his own courts, took
the whole proceeds of jurisdiction, and appointed his own
sheriff. The statement that Bishop Odo had palatine
jurisdiction in Kent may be explained by the functions which
he exercised as justiciary."
_W. Hunt,
Norman Britain,
pages 118-119._
"The earldom of Chester has belonged to the eldest son of the
sovereign since 1396; the palatinate jurisdiction of Durham
was transferred to the crown in 1836 by act of Parliament, 6
Will. IV, c. 19."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 9,
section 98, footnote (volume 1)._
See, also, PALATINE, THE IRISH COUNTIES.
PALATINE, The Hungarian.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
PALATINE, The Irish Counties.
"The franchise of a county palatine gave a right of exclusive
civil and criminal jurisdiction; so that the king's writ
should not run, nor his judges come within it, though judgment
in its courts might be reversed by writ of error in the king's
bench. The lord might enfeoff tenants to hold by knights'
service of himself; he had almost all regalian rights; the
lands of those attainted for treason escheated to him; he
acted in every thing rather as one of the great feudatories of
France or Germany than a subject of the English crown. Such
had been the earl of Chester, and only Chester, in England;
but in Ireland this dangerous independence was permitted to
Strongbow in Leinster, to Lacy in Meath, and at a later time
to the Butlers and Geraldines in parts of Munster. Strongbow's
vast inheritance soon fell to five sisters, who took to their
shares, with the same palatine rights, the counties of Carlow,
Wexford, Kilkenny, Kildare, and the district of Leix, since
called the Queen's County. In all these palatinates, forming
by far the greater portion of the English territories, the
king's process had its course only within the lands belonging
to the church."
_E. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 3)._
PALATINE HILL, The.
The Palatine City.
The Seven Mounts.
"The town which in the course of centuries grew up as Rome, in
its original form embraced according to trustworthy testimony
only the Palatine, or 'square Rome' (Roma quadrata), as it was
called in later times from the irregularly quadrangular form
of the Palatine hill. The gates and walls that enclosed this
original city remained visible down to the period of the
empire. … Many traces indicate that this was the centre and
original seat of the urban settlement. … The 'festival of the
Seven Mounts' ('septimontium'), again, preserved the memory of
the more extended settlement which gradually formed round the
Palatine. Suburbs grew up one after another, each protected by
its own separate though weaker circumvallation and joined to
the original ring-wall of the Palatine. … The 'Seven Rings'
were, the Palatine itself; the cermalus, the slope of the
Palatine in the direction of the morass that in the earliest
times extended between it and the Capitoline (velabrum); the
Velia, the ridge which connected the Palatine with the
Esquiline, but in subsequent times was almost wholly
obliterated by the buildings of the empire; the Fagutal, the
Oppius, and the Cispius, the three summits of the Esquiline;
lastly, the Sucusa, or Subura, a fortress constructed outside
of the earthern rampart which protected the new town on the
Carinae, in the low ground between the Esquiline and the
Quirinal, beneath S. Pietro in Vincoli. These additions,
manifestly the results of a gradual growth, clearly reveal to
a certain extent the earliest history of the Palatine Rome. …
The Palatine city of the Seven Mounts may have had a history
of its own; no other tradition of it has survived than simply
that of its having once existed. But as the leaves of the
forest make room for the new growth of spring, although they
fall unseen by human eyes, so has this unknown city of the
Seven Mounts made room for the Rome of history."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
See, also, QUIRINAL;
and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
{2412}
PALATINES: A. D. 1709-1710.
Migration to Ireland and America.
"The citizens of London [England] were astonished to learn, in
May and June, 1709, that 5,000 men, women and children,
Germans from the Rhine, were under tents in the suburbs. By
October the number had increased to 13,000, and comprised
husbandmen, tradesmen, school teachers and ministers. These
emigrants had deserted the Palatinate, owing to French
oppression and the persecution by their prince, the elector
John William, of the House of Newburgh, who had become a
devoted Romanist, though his subjects were mainly Lutherans
and Calvinists. Professor Henry A. Homes, in a paper treating
of this emigration, read before the Albany Institute in 1871,
holds that the movement was due not altogether to unbearable
persecutions, but largely to suggestions made to the Palatines
in their own country by agents of companies who were anxious
to obtain settlers for the British colonies in America, and
thus give value to the company's lands. The emigrants were
certainly seized with the idea that by going to England its
government would transport them to the provinces of New York,
the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania. Of the latter province they
knew much, as many Germans were already there. … Great efforts
were made to prevent suffering among these poor people;
thousands of pounds were collected for their maintenance from
churches and individuals all over England; they were lodged in
warehouses, empty dwellings and in barns, and the Queen had a
thousand tents pitched for them back of Greenwich, on
Blackheath. … Notwithstanding the great efforts made by the
English people, very much distress followed this unhappy
hegira. … Numbers of the younger men enlisted in the British
army serving in Portugal, and some made their own way to
Pennsylvania. … The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland petitioned the
Queen that some of the people might be sent to him, and by
February, 1710, 3,800 had been located across the Irish Sea,
in the province of Munster, near Limerick. … Professor Homes
recites in his monograph that they 'now number about 12,000
souls, and, under the name of Palatinates, continue to impress
a peculiar character upon the whole district they inhabit.' …
According to 'Luttrell's Diary,' about one-tenth of the whole
number that reached England were returned by the Crown to
Germany." A Swiss land company, which had bought 10,000 acres
of land from the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, "covenanted
with the English authorities for the transfer of about 700 of
these poor Heidelberg refugees to the colony. Before the end
of the year they had arrived with them at a point in North
Carolina where the rivers Neuse and Trent join. Here they
established a town, calling it New-Berne, in honor of Berne,
Switzerland. … It has not been found possible to properly
account for all the 13,000 Palatines who reached England.
Queen Anne sent some of them to Virginia, settling them above
the falls of the Rappahanock, in Spottsylvania County, from
whence they spread into several adjoining counties, and into
North Carolina. … After the Irish transportation, the largest
number that was moved in one body, and probably the final one
under government auspices, was the fleet-load that in the
spring of 1710 was despatched to New York. … A fleet of ten
ships set sail with Governor Hunter in March, having on board,
as is variously estimated, between 3,000 and 4,000 Germans. …
The immigrants were encamped on Nut, now Governor's Island,
for about three months, when a tract of 6,000 acres of the
Livingston patent was purchased for them, 100 miles up the
Hudson, the locality now being embraced in Germantown,
Columbia County. Eight hundred acres were also acquired on the
opposite side of the river at the present location of
Saugerties, in Ulster County. To these two points most of the
immigrants were removed." But dissatisfaction with their
treatment and difficulties concerning land titles impelled
many of these Germans to move off, first into Schoharie
County, and afterwards to Palatine Bridge, Montgomery County
and German Flats, Herkimer County, New York, to both of which
places they have affixed the names. Others went into
Pennsylvania, which was for many years the favorite colony
among German immigrants.
_A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
The Story of an Old Farm,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_C. B. Todd,
Robert Hunter and the Settlement of the Palatines
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 4)._
PALE, The English.
"That territory within which the English retreated and
fortified themselves when a reaction began to set in after
their first success [under Henry II.] in Ireland," acquired
the name of the Pale or the English Pale. But "that term did
not really come into use until about the beginning of the 16th
century. In earlier times this territory was called the
English Land. It is generally called Galldacht, or the
'foreigner's territory,' in the Irish annals, where the term
Galls comes to be applied to the descendants of the early
adventurers, and that of Saxons to Englishmen newly arrived.
The formation of the Pale is generally considered to date from
the reign of Edward I. About the period of which we are now
treating [reign of Henry IV.—beginning of 15th century] it
began to be limited to the four counties of Louth, Meath,
Kildare, and Dublin, which formed its utmost extent in the
reign of Henry VIII. Beyond this the authority of the king of
England was a nullity."
_M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
pages 313-314, foot-note._
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175; and 1515.
PALE, The Jewish, in Russia.
See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880, and 19TH CENTURY.
PALE FACES, The (Ku-Klux Klan).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
PALENQUE, Ruins of.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT;
and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.
----------PALERMO: Start--------
PALERMO: Origin.
See PANORMUS;
also SICILY: EARLY INHABITANTS.
PALERMO: A. D. 1146.
Introduction of silk culture.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
PALERMO: A. D. 1282.
The Sicilian Vespers.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
PALERMO: A. D. 1848-1849.
Expulsion of the Neapolitan garrison.
Surrender to King "Bomba."
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
PALERMO: A. D. 1860.
Capture by Garibaldi and his volunteers.
Bombardment by the Neapolitans.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
{2413}
----------PALESTINE: Start--------
PALESTINE:
Early inhabitants.
See
AMALEKITES;
AMMONITES;
AMORITES;
HITTITES;
JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
MOABITES; PHILISTINES; PHŒNICIANS.
PALESTINE:
Name.
After the suppression of the revolt of the Jews in A. D. 130,
by Hadrian, the name of their province was changed from Judæa
to Syria Palæstina, or Syria of the Philistines, as it had
been called by Herodotus six centuries before. Hence the
modern name, Palestine.
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
PALESTINE:
History.
See
EGYPT: about B. C. 1500-1400;
JEWS;
JERUSALEM;
SYRIA;
CHRISTIANITY;
MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE;
CRUSADES.
----------PALESTINE: End--------
PALESTRO, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
PALFREYS,
PALAFRENI.
See DESTRIERS.
PALI.
"The earlier form of the ancient spoken language [of the Aryan
race in India], called Pali or Magadhi, … was introduced into
Ceylon by Buddhist missionaries from Magadha when Buddhism
began to spread, and is now the sacred language of Ceylon and
Burmah, in which all their Buddhist literature is written."
The Pali language is thought to represent one of the stages in
the development of the Prakrit, or common speech of the
Hindus, as separated from the Sanskrit, or language of the
learned.
See SANSKRIT.
_M. Williams,
Indian Wisdom,
introduction, pages xxix-xxx, foot-note._
PALILIA, Festival of the.
"The festival named Palilia [at Rome] was celebrated on the
Palatine every year on the 21st April, in honour of Pales, the
tutelary divinity of the shepherds, who dwelt on the Palatine.
This day was held sacred as an anniversary of the day on which
Romulus commenced the building of the city."
_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 40._
PALLA, The.
See STOLA.
PALLADIUM, The.
"The Palladium, kept in the temple of Vesta at Rome, was a
small figure of Pallas, roughly carved out of wood, about
three feet high. Ilos, King of Troy, grandfather of Priam,
after building the city asked Zeus to give him a visible sign
that he would take it under his special protection. During the
night the Palladium fell down from heaven, and was found the
next morning outside his tent. The king built a temple for it,
and from that time the Trojans firmly believed that as long as
they could keep this figure their town would be safe; but if
at any time it should be lost or stolen, some dreadful
calamity would overtake them. The story further relates that,
at the siege of Troy, its whereabouts was betrayed to Diomed,
and he and the wily Ulysses climbed the wall at night and
carried it off. The Palladium, enraged at finding itself in
the Grecian camp, sprang three times in the air, its eyes
flashing wildly, while drops of sweat stood on its brow. The
Greeks, however, would not give it up, and Troy, robbed of her
guardian, was soon after conquered by the Greeks. But an
oracle having warned Diomed not to keep it, he, on landing in
Italy, gave it to one of Æneas' companions, by whom it was
brought into the neighbourhood of the future site of Rome.
Another legend relates that Æneas saved it after the
destruction of Troy, and fled with it to Italy, where it was
afterwards placed by his descendants in the Temple of Vesta,
in Rome. Here the inner and most sacred place in the Temple
was reserved for it, and no man, not even the chief priest,
was allowed to see it except when it was shown on the occasion
of any high festival. The Vestals had strict orders to guard
it carefully, and to save it in case of fire, as the welfare
of Rome depended on its preservation."
_F. Nösselt,
Mythology, Greek and Roman,
page 3._
PALLESCHI, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.
PALLIUM, The.
"The pallium, or mantle of the Greeks, from its being less
cumbersome and trailing than the toga of the Romans, by
degrees superseded the latter in the country and in the camp.
When worn over armour, and fastened on the right shoulder with
a clasp or button, this cloak assumed the name of
paludamentum."
_T. Hope,
Costume of the Ancients,
volume 1, p 37._
PALM, The Execution of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
PALMERSTON MINISTRIES.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1855; 1858-1859.
PALMI.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
----------PALMYRA: Start--------
PALMYRA,
Earliest knowledge of.
"The outlying city of Palmyra—the name of which is first
mentioned during the wars of M. Antony in Syria [B. C. 41]—was
certainly at this period [of Augustus, B. C. 31-A. D. 14]
independent and preserved a position of neutrality between the
Romans and Parthians, while it carried on trade with both. It
does not appear however to have as yet risen to a place of
great importance, as its name is not mentioned by Strabo. The
period of its prosperity dates only from the time of Hadrian."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 20, section 1 (volume 2)._
PALMYRA:
Rise and fall.
"Amidst the barren deserts of Arabia a few cultivated spots
rise like islands out of the sandy ocean. Even the name of
Tadmor, or Palmyra, by its signification in the Syriac as well
as in the Latin language, denoted the multitude of palm-trees
which afforded shade and verdure to that temperate region. The
air was pure, and the soil, watered by some invaluable
springs, was capable of producing fruits as well as corn. A
place possessed of such singular advantages, and situated at a
convenient distance between the gulf of Persia and the
Mediterranean, was soon frequented by the caravans which
conveyed to the nations of Europe a considerable part of the
rich commodities of India. [It has been the opinion of some
writers that Tadmor was founded by Solomon as a commercial
station, but the opinion is little credited at present.]
Palmyra insensibly increased into an opulent and independent
city, and, connecting the Roman and the Parthian monarchies by
the mutual benefits of commerce, was suffered to observe an
humble neutrality, till at length, after the victories of
Trajan, the little republic sunk into the bosom of Rome, and
flourished more than one hundred and fifty years in the
subordinate though honourable rank of a colony." On the
occasion of the invasion of Syria by the Persian king, Sapor,
when the Emperor Valerian was defeated and taken prisoner (A.
D. 260-261), the only effectual resistance opposed to him was
organized and led by a wealthy senator of Palmyra, Odenathus
(some ancient writers call him a Saracen prince), who founded,
by his exploits at that time, a substantial military power.
{2414}
Aided and seconded by his famous wife, Zenobia, who is one of
the great heroines of history, he extended his authority over
the Roman East and defeated the Persian king in several
campaigns. On his death, by assassination, in 267, Zenobia
ascended the Palmyrenian throne and ruled with masculine
firmness of character. Her dominions were extended from the
Euphrates and the frontiers of Bithynia to Egypt, and are
said, with some doubtfulness, to have included even that rich
province, for a time. But the Romans, who had acquiesced in
the rule of Odenathus, and recognized it, in the day of their
weakness, now resented the presumption and the power of his
widowed queen. Perhaps they had reason to fear her ambition
and her success. Refusing to submit to the demands that were
made upon her, she boldly challenged the attack of the warlike
emperor, Aurelian, and suffered defeat in two great, battles,
fought A. D. 272 or 273, near Antioch and near Emesa. A vain
attempt to hold Palmyra against the besieging force of the
Roman, an unsuccessful flight and a capture by pursuing
horsemen, ended the political career of the brilliant 'Queen
of the East.' She saved her life somewhat ignobly by giving up
her counsellors to Aurelian's vengeance. The philosopher
Longinus was one who perished. Zenobia was sent to Rome and
figured among the captives in Aurelian's triumph. She was then
given for her residence a splendid villa at Tibur (Tivoli)
twenty miles from Rome, and lived quietly through the
remainder of her days, connecting herself, by the marriage of
her daughters, with the noble families of Rome. Palmyra, which
had been spared on its surrender, rashly rose in revolt
quickly after Aurelian had left its gates. The enraged emperor
returned and inflicted on the fated city a chastisement from
which it never rose."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 10-11._
----------PALMYRA: End--------
PALMYRÊNÉ, The.
"Palmyrêné, or the Syrian Desert—the tract lying between
Cœle-Syria on the one hand, and the valley of the middle
Euphrates on the other, and abutting towards the south on the
great Arabian Desert, to which it is sometimes regarded as
belonging. It is for the most part a hard sandy, or gravelly
plain, intersected by low rocky ranges, and either barren or
productive only of some sapless shrubs and of a low thin
grass. Occasionally, however, there are oases, where the
fertility is considerable. Such an oasis is the region about
Palmyra itself, which derived its name from the palm groves in
the vicinity; here the soil is good, and a large tract is even
now under cultivation. … Though large armies can never have
traversed the desert even in this upper region, where it is
comparatively narrow, trade in ancient times found it
expedient to avoid the long 'détour' by the Orontes valley,
Aleppo, and Bambuk and to proceed directly from Damascus by
way of Palmyra to Thapsacus on the Euphrates."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia,
chapter 1._
PALO ALTO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
PALSGRAVE.
An Anglicized form of Pfalzgraf.
See PALATINE COUNT.
PALUDAMENTUM, The.
"As soon as the [Roman] consul entered upon his military
career, he assumed certain symbols of command. The cloak of
scarlet or purple which the imperator threw over his corslet
was named the paludamentum, and this, which became in later
times the imperial robe, he never wore except on actual
service."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31._
See, also, PALLIUM.
PALUS MÆOTIS,
MÆOTIS PALUS.
The ancient Greek name of the Sea of Azov.
PAMLICOS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
PAMPAS.
LLANOS.
"In the southern continent [of America], the regions which
correspond with the prairies of the United States are the
'pampas' of the La Plata and the 'llanos' of Columbia [both
'pampa' and 'llano' having in Spanish the signification of 'a
plain']. … The llanos of Venezuela and New Granada have an
area estimated at 154,000 square miles, nearly equal to that
of France. The Argentine pampas, which are situated at the
other extremity of the continent, have a much more
considerable extent, probably exceeding 500,000 square miles.
This great central plain … stretches its immense and nearly
horizontal surface over a length of at least 1,900 miles, from
the burning regions of tropical Brazil to the cold countries
of Patagonia."
_E. Reclus,
The Earth,
chapter 15._
For an account of the Indian tribes of the Pampas.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
PAMPELUNA: Siege by the French (1521).
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
PAMPTICOKES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
PAN-AMERICAN CONGRESS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
PAN-HANDLE, The.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
PAN-IONIC AMPHICTYONY.
See IONIC AMPHICTYONY.
----------PANAMA: Start--------
PANAMA: A. D. 1501-1502.
Discovery by Bastidas.
Coasted by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505, and 1500.
PANAMA: A. D. 1509.
Creation of the Province of Castilla del Oro.
Settlement on the Gulf of Uraba.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
PANAMA: A. D. 1513-1517.
Vasco Nuñez de Balboa and the discovery of the Pacific.
The malignant rule of Pedrarias Davila.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
PANAMA: A. D. 1519.
Name and Origin of the city.
Originally, Panama was the native name of an Indian fishing
village, on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus, the word
signifying "a place where many fish are taken." In 1519 the
Spaniards founded there a city which they made their capital
and chief mart on the Pacific coast.
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapters 10-11 and 15._
PANAMA: A. D. 1671-1680.
Capture, destruction and recapture of the city of Panama
by the Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
PANAMA: A. D. 1688-1699.
The Scottish colony of Darien.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
PANAMA: A. D. 1826.
The Congress of American States.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
PANAMA: A. D. 1846-1855.
American right of transit secured by Treaty.
Building of the Panama Railroad.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
PANAMA: A. D. 1855.
An independent state in the Colombian Confederation.
Opening of the Panama Railway.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.
{2415}
PANAMA CANAL.
PANAMA SCANDAL.
"The commencement of an undertaking [projected by Count
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal] for
connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, through the
Isthmus of Panama, was a natural result of the success
achieved by the Suez Canal. Various sites have been proposed
from time to time for the construction of a canal across the
Isthmus, the most northern being the Tehuantepec route, at a
comparatively broad part of the Isthmus, and the most southern
the Atrato route, following for some distance the course of
the Atrato River. The site eventually selected, in 1879, for
the construction of a canal was at the narrowest part of the
Isthmus, and where the central ridge is the lowest, known as
the Panama route, nearly following the course of the Panama
Rail way. It was the only scheme that did not necessarily
involve a tunnel or locks. The length of the route between
Colon on the Atlantic, and Panama on the Pacific, is 46 miles,
not quite half the length of the Suez Canal; but a tide-level
canal involved a cutting across the Cordilleras, at the
Culebra Pass, nearly 300 feet deep, mainly through rock. The
section of the canal was designed on the lines of the Suez
Canal, with a bottom width of 72 feet, and a depth of water of
27 feet, except in the central rock cutting, where the width
was to be increased to 78¾ feet on account of the nearly
vertical sides, and the depth to 29½ feet. … The work was
commenced in 1882. … The difficulties and expenses, however,
of the undertaking had been greatly under–estimated. The
climate proved exceptionally unhealthy, especially when the
soil began to be turned up by the excavations. The actual cost
of the excavation was much greater than originally estimated;
and the total amount of excavation required to form a level
canal, which had originally been estimated at 100 million
cubic yards, was subsequently computed, on more exact data, at
176½ million cubic yards. The preliminary works were also very
extensive and costly; and difficulties were experienced, after
a time, in raising the funds for carrying on the works, even
when shares were offered at a very great discount. Eventually,
in 1887, the capital at the disposal of the company had nearly
come to an end; whilst only a little more than one-fifth of
the excavation had been completed. … At that period it was
determined to expedite the work, and reduce the cost of
completing the canal, by introducing locks, and thus diminish
the remaining amount of excavation by 85 million cubic yards;
though the estimated cost, even with this modification, had
increased from £33,500,000 to £65,500,000. … The financial
embarrassments, however, of the company have prevented the
carrying out of this scheme for completing the canal; and the
works are at present [1891] at a standstill, in a very
unfinished state."
_L. F. Vernon-Harcourt,
Achievements in Engineering,
chapter 14._
"It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company
stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government,
a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding
some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light,
which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The
indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps,
his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to
ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt
expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The
gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the
interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought
forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of
corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that
3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150
Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he
persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted
details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately
agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33
Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses
against the accused Directors were issued the same day,
charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating
belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of
sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose,
and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.'
The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25,
when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles,
his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were
absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November
28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the
Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of
the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron
Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body
be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his
sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the
prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for
purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on
the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of
suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full
light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice
said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the
Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would
make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a
resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been
sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the
day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to
do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet
immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed
during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively
tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign
Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December
5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the
Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course
of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling
evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that
the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for
puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that
Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in
Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. …
On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned,
because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the
meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the
Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps,
M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company,
on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the
company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries.
This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five
Senators and five Deputies.
_Quarterly Register of Current History,
March, 1893._
{2416}
"The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane,
Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of
appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the
bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with
1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced
against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned
to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000
francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs
each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March
8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut,
Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on
charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De
Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty
March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M.
Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was
condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of
civil rights. The others were acquitted."
_Cyclopedic Review of Current History,
volume 3, number 1 (1803)._
"On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the
first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed
more than three years before the institution of proceedings,
reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary
investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years'
prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but
Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for
corruption."
_Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893,
page 321._
The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the
venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only
in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation
of which the public had not known before the strength and
frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold,
they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was
very different."
_P. De Coubertin,
L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique,
page 266._
PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.
See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.
PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
PANDES.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
PANDOURS.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894;
and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.
PANIPAT,
PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).
See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.
PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
PANJAB, The.
See PUNJAB.
PANNONIA AND NORICUM.
"The wide extent of territory which is included between the
Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia,
Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the
ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their
original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were
intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were
frequently united."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 1._
Pannonia embraced much the larger part of the territory
described above, covering the center and heart of the modern
Austro-Hungarian empire. It was separated from Noricum, lying
west and northwest of it, by Mons Cetius. For the settlement
of the Vandals in Pannonia, and its conquest by the Huns and
Goths:
See VANDALS: ORIGIN, &c.;
HUNS: A. D. 433-453, and 453;
and GOTHS: A. D. 473-474.
PANO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
PANORMUS.
The modern city of Palermo was of very ancient origin, founded
by the Phœnicians and passing from them to the Carthaginians,
who made it one of their principal naval stations in Sicily.
Its Greek name, Panorma, signified a port always to be
depended upon.
PANORMUS, Battles at (B. C. 254-251).
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
PANTANO DE BARGAS, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
PANTHEON AT ROME, The.
"At the same time with his Thermæ, Agrippa [son-in-law and
friend of Augustus] built the famous dome, called by Pliny and
Dion Cassius, and in the inscription of Severus on the
architrave of the building itself, the Pantheon, and still
retaining that name, though now consecrated as a Christian
church under the name of S. Maria ad Martyres or dell a
Rotonda. This consecration, together with the colossal
thickness of the walls, has secured the building against the
attacks Of time, and the still more destructive attacks of the
barons of the Middle Ages. … The Pantheon was always be
reckoned among the masterpieces of architecture for solid
durability combined with beauty of interior effect. The Romans
prided themselves greatly upon it as one of the wonders of
their great capital, and no other dome of antiquity could
rival its colossal dimensions. … The inscription assigns its
completion to the year A. D. 27, the third consulship of
Agrippa. … The original name Pantheon, taken in connection
with the numerous niches for statues of the gods in the
interior, seems to contradict the idea that it was dedicated
to any peculiar deity or class of deities. The seven principal
niches may have been intended for the seven superior deities,
and the eight ædiculæ for the next in dignity, while the
twelve niches in the upper ring were occupied by the inferior
inhabitants of Olympus. Dion hints at this explanation when he
suggests that the name was taken from the resemblance of the
dome to the vault of heaven."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 13, part 2._
"The world has nothing else like the Pantheon. … The rust and
dinginess that have dimmed the precious marble on the walls;
the pavement, with its great squares and rounds of porphyry
and granite, cracked crosswise and in a hundred directions,
showing how roughly the troublesome ages have trampled here;
the gray dome above, with its opening to the sky, as if heaven
were looking down into the interior of this place of worship,
left unimpeded for prayers to ascend the more freely: all
these things make an impression of solemnity, which Saint
Peter's itself fails to produce. 'I think,' said the sculptor,
'it is to the aperture in the dome—that great Eye, gazing
heavenward—that the Pantheon owes the peculiarity of its
effect.'"
_N. Hawthorne,
The Marble Faun,
chapter 50._
{2417}
PANTIBIBLON, The exhumed Library of.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
PANTIKAPÆUM.
See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY AND KINGDOM.
PAOLI, and the Corsican struggle.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
PAOLI, Surprise of Wayne at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).
----------PAPACY: Start--------
PAPACY:
St. Peter and the Church at Rome.
"The generally received account among Roman Catholics, and one
which can claim a long traditional acceptance, is that Peter
came to Rome in the second year of Claudius (that is, A. D.
42), and that he held the see twenty-five years, a length of
episcopate never reached again until by Pio Nono, who exceeded
it. … Now if it is possible to prove a negative at all, we may
conclude, with at least high probability, that Peter was not
at Rome during any of the time on which the writings of the
canonical Scriptures throw much light, and almost certainly
that during that time he was not its bishop. We have an
Epistle of Paul to the Romans full of salutations to his
friends there, but no mention of their bishop. Nor is anything
said of work done by Peter in founding that Church. On the
contrary, it is implied that no Apostle had as yet visited it;
for such is the inference from the passage already cited, in
which Paul expresses his wish to see the Roman Christians in
order that he might impart some spiritual gift to the end that
they might be established. We have letters of Paul from Rome
in which no message is sent from Peter; and in the very last
of these letters Paul complains of being left alone, and that
only Luke was with him. Was Peter one of the deserters? The
Scripture accounts of Peter place him in Judæa, in Antioch,
possibly in Corinth, but finally in Babylon. … Plainly, if
Peter was ever at Rome, it was after the date of Paul's second
Epistle to Timothy. Some Protestant controversialists have
asserted that Peter was never at Rome; but though the proofs
that he was there are not so strong as I should like them to
be if I had any doctrine depending on it, I think the historic
probability is that he was; though, as I say, at a late period
of the history, and not long before his death. … For myself, I
am willing, in the absence of any opposing tradition, to
accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at
Rome. We know with certainty from John xxi. that Peter
suffered martyrdom somewhere. If Rome, which early laid claim
to have witnessed that martyrdom, were not the scene of it,
where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim
such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but
Rome made the claim. … From the question, whether Peter ever
visited Rome, we pass now to a very different question,
whether he was its bishop. … We think it scandalous when we
read of bishops a hundred years ago who never went near their
sees. … But if we are to believe Roman theory, the bad example
had been set by St. Peter, who was the first absentee bishop.
If he became bishop of Rome in the second year of Claudius, he
appears never afterwards to have gone near his see until close
upon his death. Nay, he never even wrote a letter to his
Church while he was away; or if he did, they did not think it
worth preserving. Baronius (in Ann. lviii. § 51) owns the
force of the Scripture reasons for believing that Peter was
not in Rome during any time on which the New Testament throws
light. His theory is that, when Claudius commanded all Jews to
leave Rome, Peter was forced to go away. And as for his
subsequent absences, they were forced on him by his duty as
the chief of the Apostles, having care of all the Churches. …
These, no doubt, are excellent reasons for Peter's not
remaining at Rome; but why, then, did he undertake duties
which he must have known he could not fulfil?"
_G. Salmon,
The Infallibility of the Church,
pages 347-350._
The Roman Catholic belief as to St. Peter's episcopacy, and
the primacy conferred by it on the Roman See, is stated by Dr.
Dollinger as follows: "The time of … [St. Peter's] arrival in
Rome, and the consequent duration of his episcopacy in that
city, have been the subjects of many various opinions amongst
the learned of ancient and modern times; nor is it possible to
reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of ancient
writers, unless we suppose that the prince of the apostles
resided at two distinct periods in the imperial capital.
According to St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Orosius, his first
arrival in Rome was in the second year of the reign of
Claudius (A. D. 42); but he was obliged, by the decree of the
emperor, banishing all Jews from the city, to return to
Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he undertook a journey through Asia
Minor, and founded, or at least, visited, the Churches of
Pontus, Gallacia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia. To these Churches
he afterwards addressed his epistle from Rome. His second
journey to Rome was in the reign of Nero; and it is of this
journey that Dionysius, of Corinth, and Lactantius, write.
There, with the blessed Paul, he suffered, in the year 67, the
death of a martyr. We may now ascertain that the period of
twenty-five years assigned by Eusebius and St. Jerome, to the
episcopacy of St. Peter in Rome, is not a fiction of their
imaginations; for from the second year of Claudius, in which
the apostle founded the Church of Rome, to the year of his
death, there intervene exactly twenty-five years. That he
remained during the whole of this period in Rome, no one has
pretended. … Our Lord conferred upon his apostle, Peter, the
supreme authority in the Church. After he had required and
obtained from him a public profession of his faith, he
declared him to be the rock, the foundation upon which he
would build his Church; and, at the same time, promised that
he would give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. … In
the enumeration of the apostles, frequently repeated by the
Evangelists, we find that Peter is always the first named:—he
is sometimes named alone, when the others are mentioned in
general.
{2418}
After the ascension of our Lord, it is he who directs and
governs: he leads the assembly in which a successor to the
apostle who had prevaricated, is chosen: after the descent of
the Holy Ghost, he speaks first to the people, and announces
to them Jesus Christ: he performs the first miracle, and, in
the name of his brethren, addresses the synedrium: he punishes
the crime of Ananias: he opens the gates of the Church to the
Gentiles, and presides at the first council at Jerusalem. …
The more the Church was extended, and the more its
constitution was formed, the more necessary did the power with
which Peter had been invested become,—the more evident was the
need of a head which united the members in one body, of a
point and centre of unity. … Succession by ordination was the
means, by which from the beginning the power left by Christ in
his Church was continued: thus the power of the apostles
descended to the bishops, their successors, and thus as Peter
died bishop of the Church of Rome, where he sealed his
doctrine with his blood, the primacy which he had received
would be continued in him by whom he was there succeeded. It
was not without a particular interposition of Providence that
this pre-eminence was granted to the city of Rome, and that it
became the depository of ecclesiastical supremacy. This city,
which rose in the midway between the east and the west, by its
position, by its proximity to the sea, by its dignity, as
capital of the Roman empire, being open on all sides to
communication even with the most distant nations, was
evidently more than any other adapted to become the centre of
the universal Church. … There are not wanting, in the first
three centuries, testimonies and facts, some of which directly
attest, and others presuppose, the supremacy of the Roman
Church and of its bishops."
_J. J. I. Dollinger,
History of the Church,
period 1, chapter 1, section 4,
and chapter 3, section 4 (volume 1)._
PAPACY:
Supremacy of the Roman See: Grounds of the Claim.
The historical ground of the claim to supremacy over the
Christian Church asserted on behalf of the Roman See is stated
by Cardinal Gibbons as follows: "I shall endeavor to show,
from incontestable historical evidence, that the Popes have
always, from the days of the Apostles, continued to exercise
supreme jurisdiction, not only in the Western church, till the
Reformation, but also throughout the Eastern church, till the
great schism of the ninth century.
1. Take the question of appeals. An appeal is never made from
a superior to an inferior court, nor even from one court to
another of co-ordinate jurisdiction. We do not appeal from
Washington to Richmond, but from Richmond to Washington. Now
if we find the See of Rome, from the foundation of
Christianity, entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from
the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final
and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome
over all the churches is an undeniable fact. Let me give you a
few illustrations: To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the
third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by
St. Paul in one of his Epistles. Some dissension and scandal
having occurred in the church of Corinth, the matter is
brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises
his supreme authority by writing letters of remonstrance and
admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence
entertained for these Epistles, by the faithful of Corinth,
that for a century later it was customary to have them
publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians
appeal to Rome far away in the West, and not to Ephesus so
near home in the East, where the Apostle St. John still lived?
Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while
that of Rome was universal. About the year 190, the question
regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated
in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern
church generally celebrated Easter on the day on which the
Jews kept the Passover; while in the West it was observed
then, as it is now, on the first Sunday after the full moon of
the vernal equinox. St. Victor directs the Eastern churches,
for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the
West, and his instructions are universally followed.
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third
century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred
on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the
suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly
vindicates his own orthodoxy. St. Athanasius, the great
Patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century, to
Pope Julius I., from an unjust decision rendered against him
by the Oriental bishops; and the Pope reverses the sentence of
the Eastern council. St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, in the
same century, has recourse, in his afflictions, to the
protection of Pope Damasus. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of
Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century,
to Pope Innocent I., for a redress of grievances inflicted on
him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of
Constantinople. St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against
Nestorius; Nestorius also appeals to the same Pontiff, who
takes the side of Cyril. Theodoret, the illustrious historian
and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of
Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo. … John, Abbot of
Constantinople, appeals from the decision of the Patriarch of
that city to Pope St. Gregory I., who reverses the sentence of
the Patriarch. In 859, Photius addressed a letter to Pope
Nicholas I., asking the Pontiff to confirm his election to the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. In consequence of the Pope's
conscientious refusal, Photius broke off from the communion of
the Catholic Church, and became the author of the Greek
schism. Here are a few examples taken at random from Church
History. We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and
learning, occupying the highest position in the Eastern
church, and consequently far removed from the local influences
of Rome, appealing in every period of the early church, from
the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the
supreme arbitration of the Holy See. If this does not
constitute superior jurisdiction, I have yet to learn what
superior authority means.
2. Christians of every denomination admit the orthodoxy of the
Fathers of the first five centuries of the Church. No one has
ever called in question the faith of such men as Basil,
Chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and Leo. …
Now the Fathers of the Church, with one voice, pay homage to
the Bishops of Rome as their superiors. …
{2419}
3. Ecumenical Councils afford another eloquent vindication of
Papal supremacy. An Ecumenical or General Council is an
assemblage of Prelates representing the whole Catholic Church.
… Up to the present time, nineteen Ecumenical Councils have
been convened, including the Council of the Vatican. … The
first General Council was held in Nicæa, in 325; the second,
in Constantinople, in 381; the third, in Ephesus, in 431; the
fourth, in Chalcedon, in 451; the fifth, in Constantinople, in
553; the sixth, in the same city, in 680; the seventh, in
Nicæa, in 787; and the eighth, in Constantinople, in 809. The
Bishops of Rome convoked these assemblages, or at least
consented to their convocation; they presided by their legates
over all of them, except the first and second councils of
Constantinople, and they confirmed all these eight by their
authority. Before becoming a law, the acts of the Councils
required the Pope's signature.
4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of
the Pope's jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most
remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from
Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has
received the light of faith from missionaries who were either
especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops
in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits
of no exception. Let me particularize: Ireland's Apostle is
St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the
fifth century. St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who
sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine. The Anglo-Saxons
received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as
all historians Catholic and non-Catholic testify: Who
empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I., at the end of
the sixth century. St. Remigius established the faith in
France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active
communion with the See of Peter. Flanders received the Gospel
in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the
supremacy of the reigning Pope. Germany and Bavaria venerate
as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his
native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was
commissioned by Pope Gregory II., in the beginning of the
eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same
Pontiff. In the ninth century, two saintly brothers, Cyril and
Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, and Moravia, and
other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme
authority of Pope Nicholas I., and of his successors, Adrian
II. and John VIII. In the eleventh century, Norway was
converted by missionaries introduced from England by the
Norwegian King St. Olave. The conversion of Sweden was
consummated in the same century by the British Apostles Saints
Ulfrid and Eskill. Both of these nations immediately after
their conversion commenced to pay Rome-scot, or a small annual
tribute to the Holy See,—a clear evidence that they were in
communion with the Chair of Peter. All the other nations of
Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received
likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic missionaries,
because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief."
_James, Cardinal Gibbons,
The Faith of our Fathers,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_Francis P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore,
The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated._
PAPACY:
Supremacy of the Roman See:
Grounds of the Denial.
"The first document by which the partisans of the Papal
sovereignty justify themselves, is the letter written by St.
Clement in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at
Corinth. They assert, that it was written by virtue of a
superior authority attached to his title of Bishop of Rome.
Now, it is unquestionable, 1st. That St. Clement was not
Bishop of Rome when he wrote to the Corinthians. 2d. That in
this matter he did not act of his own authority, but in the
name of the Church at Rome, and from motives of charity. The
letter signed by St. Clement was written A. D. 69, immediately
after the persecution by Nero, which took place between the
years 64 and 68, as all learned men agree. … It may be seen
from the letter itself that it was written after a
persecution; if it be pretended that this persecution was that
of Domitian, then the letter must be dated in the last years
of the first century, since it was chiefly in the years 95 and
96 that the persecution of Domitian took place. Now, it is
easy to see from the letter itself, that it was written before
that time, for it speaks of the Jewish sacrifices as still
existing in the temple of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed
with the city of Jerusalem, by Titus A. D. 70. Hence, the
letter must have been written before that year. Besides, the
letter was written after some persecution, in which had
suffered, at Rome, some very illustrious martyrs. There was
nothing of the kind in the persecution of Domitian. The
persecution of Nero lasted from the year 64 to the year 68.
Hence it follows, that the letter to the Corinthians could
only have been written in the year 69, that is to say,
twenty-four years before Clement was Bishop of Rome. In
presence of this simple calculation what becomes of the stress
laid by the partisans of Papal sovereignty, upon the
importance of this document as emanating from Pope St.
Clement? Even if it could be shown that the letter of St.
Clement was written during his episcopate, this would prove
nothing, because this letter was not written by him by virtue
of a superior and personal authority possessed by him, but
from mere charity, and in the name of the Church at Rome. Let
us hear Eusebius upon this subject: 'Of this Clement there is
one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, … which he wrote
in the name of the Church at Rome to that of Corinth, at the
time when there was a dissension in the latter.' … He could
not say more explicitly, that Clement did not in this matter
act of his own authority, by virtue of any power he
individually possessed. Nothing in the letter itself gives a
suspicion of such authority. It thus commences: 'The Church of
God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at
Corinth.' … There is every reason to believe that St. Clement
draughted this letter to the Corinthians. From the first
centuries it has been considered as his work. It was not as
Bishop of Rome, but as a disciple of the Apostles, that he
wrote it. … In the second century the question concerning
Easter was agitated with much warmth. Many Oriental Churches
wished to follow the Judaical traditions, preserved by several
Apostles in the celebration of that feast, and to hold it upon
the fourteenth day of the March moon; other Eastern Churches,
in agreement with the Western Churches according to an equally
Apostolic tradition, celebrated the festival of Easter the Sunday
following the fourteenth day of the March moon.
{2420}
The question in itself considered was of no great importance;
and yet it was generally thought that all the Churches should
celebrate at one and the same time the great Christian
festival, and that some should not be rejoicing over the
resurrection of the Saviour, while others were contemplating
the mysteries of his death. How was the question settled? Did
the Bishop of Rome interpose his authority and overrule the
discussion, as would have been the case had he enjoyed a
supreme authority? Let us take the evidence of History. The
question having been agitated, 'there were synods and
convocations of the Bishops on this question,' says Eusebius,
'and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which
they communicated to all the Churches in all places. … There
is an epistle extant even now of those who were assembled at
the time; among whom presided Theophilus, Bishop of the Church
in Cesarea and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. There is
another epistle' (of the Roman Synod) 'extant on the same
question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle also of the
Bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient,
presided; also of the Churches of Gaul over whom Irenæus
presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities
there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, Bishop of the
Corinthians; and epistles of many others who, advancing one
and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote.' It is
evident that Eusebius speaks of the letter of the Roman synod
in the same terms as of the others; he does not attribute it
to Bishop Victor, but to the assembly of the Roman Clergy; and
lastly, he only mentions it in the second place after that of
the Bishops of Palestine. Here is a point irrefragably
established; it is that in the matter of Easter, the Church of
Rome discussed and judged the question in the same capacity as
the other churches, and that the Bishop of Rome only signed
the letter in the name of the synod which represented that
Church."
_Abbé Guettée,
The Papacy,
pages 53-58._
"At the time of the Council of Nicæa it was clear that the
metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, held a
superior rank among their brethren, and had a kind of
ill-defined jurisdiction over the provinces of several
metropolitans. The fathers of Nicæa recognized the fact that
the privileges of these sees were regulated by customs already
regarded as primitive, and these customs they confirmed. … The
empire was afterwards divided for the purposes of civil
government into four Prefectures. … The organization of the
Church followed in its main lines that of the empire. It also
had its dioceses and provinces, coinciding for the most part
with the similarly named political divisions. Not only did the
same circumstances which marked out a city for political
preeminence also indicate it as a fit centre of ecclesiastical
rule, but it was a recognized principle with the Church that
the ecclesiastical should follow the civil division. At the
head of a diocese was a patriarch, at the head of a province
was a metropolitan; the territory of a simple bishop was a
parish. … The see of Constantinople … became the oriental
counterpart of that of Rome. … But the patriarchal system of
government, like every other, suffered from the shocks of
time. The patriarch of Antioch had, in the first instance, the
most extensive territory, for he claimed authority not only
over the civil diocese of the East, but over the Churches in
Persia, Media, Parthia, and India, which lay beyond the limits
of the empire. But this large organization was but loosely
knit, and constantly tended to dissolution. … After the
conquests of Caliph Omar the great see of Antioch sank into
insignificance. The region subject to the Alexandrian
patriarch was much smaller than that of Antioch, but it was
better compacted. Here too however the Monophysite tumult so
shook its organization that it was no longer able to resist
the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople. It also fell
under the dominion of the Saracens—a fate which had already
befallen Jerusalem. In the whole East there remained only the
patriarch of Constantinople in a condition to exercise actual
authority. … According to Rufinus's version of the sixth canon
of the Council of Nicæa, the Bishop of Rome had entrusted to
him the care of the suburbicarian churches [probably including
Lower Italy and most of Central Italy, with Sicily, Sardinia
and Corsica]. … But many causes tended to extend the authority
of the Roman patriarch beyond these modest limits. The
patriarch of Constantinople depended largely for his authority
on the will of the emperor, and his spiritual realm was
agitated by the constant intrigues of opposing parties. His
brother of Rome enjoyed generally more freedom in matters
spiritual, and the diocese over which he presided, keeping
aloof for the most part from controversies on points of dogma,
was therefore comparatively calm and united. Even the
Orientals were impressed by the majesty of old Rome, and gave
great honour to its bishop. In the West, the highest respect
was paid to those sees which claimed an Apostle as founder,
and among these the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul naturally
took the highest place. It was, in fact, the one apostolic see
of Western Europe, and as such received a unique regard. …
Doubtful questions about apostolic doctrine and custom were
addressed certainly to other distinguished bishops, as
Athanasius and Basil, but they came more readily and more
constantly to Rome, as already the last appeal in many civil
matters. We must not suppose however that the Churches of the
East were ready to accept the sway of Rome, however they might
respect the great city of the West. … The authority of the
Roman see increased from causes which are sufficiently obvious
to historical enquirers. But the greatest of the Roman bishops
were far too wise to tolerate the supposition that their power
depended on earthly sanctions. They contended steadfastly that
they were the heads of the Church on earth, because they were
the successors of him to whom the Lord had given the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, St. Peter. And they also contended that
Rome was, in the most emphatic sense, the mother-church of the
whole West. Innocent I. claims that no Church had ever been
founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the
Mediterranean islands, except by men who had received their
commission from St. Peter or his successors. At the same time,
they admitted that the privileges of the see were not wholly
derived immediately from its founder, but were conferred by
past generations out of respect for St. Peter's see.
{2421}
But the bishop who most clearly and emphatically asserted the
claims of the Roman see to preeminence over the whole Church
on earth was no doubt Leo I., a great man who filled a most
critical position with extraordinary firmness and ability.
Almost every argument by which in later times the authority of
the see of St. Peter was supported is to be found in the
letters of Leo. … The Empire of the West never seriously
interfered with the proceedings of the Roman bishop; and when
it fell, the Church became the heir of the empire. In the
general crash, the Latin Christians found themselves compelled
to drop their smaller differences, and rally round the
strongest representative of the old order. The Teutons, who
shook to pieces the imperial system, brought into greater
prominence the essential unity of all that was Catholic and
Latin in the empire, and so strengthened the position of the
see of Rome. … It must not however be supposed that the views
of the Roman bishops as to the authority of Rome were
universally accepted even in the West. Many Churches had grown
up independently of Rome and were abundantly conscious of the
greatness of their own past. … And in the African Church the
reluctance to submit to Roman dictation which had showed
itself in Cyprian's time was maintained for many generations.
… In Gaul too there was a vigorous resistance to the
jurisdiction of the see of St. Peter."
_S. Cheetham,
History of the Christian Church
during the First Six Centuries,
pages 181-195._
"A colossal city makes a colossal bishop, and this principle
reached its maximum embodiment in Rome. The greatest City of
the World made the greatest Bishop of the World. Even when the
Empire was heathen the City lifted the Bishop so high that he
drew to himself the unwelcome attention of the secular power,
and in succession, in consequence, as in no other see, the
early Bishops of Rome were martyrs. When the Empire became
Christian, Rome's place was recognized as first, and the
principle on which that primacy rested was clearly and
accurately defined when the Second General Council, acting on
this principle, assigned to the new seat of empire,
Constantinople, the second place; it was the principle,
namely, of honor, based upon material greatness. … The
principle of the primacy, as distinguished from the supremacy
growing out of Petrine claims was the heart and soul of
Gallicanism in contrast to Ultramontanism, and was crushed out
even in the Roman communion not twenty years ago."
_Rt. Rev. G. F. Seymour,
The Church of Rome in her relation to Christian Unity
("History and Teachings of the Early Church," lecture 5)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1._
PAPACY:
Origin of the Papal title.
"'Papa,' that strange and universal mixture of familiar
endearment and of reverential awe, extended in a general sense
to all Greek Presbyters and all Latin Bishops, was the special
address which, long before the names of patriarch or
archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian church. …
He was the Pope. The Pope of Rome was a phrase which had not
yet [at the time of the meeting of the Council of Nicæa, A. D.
325] emerged in history. But Pope of Alexandria was a
well-known dignity. … This peculiar Alexandrian application of
a name, in itself expressing simple affection, is thus
explained:—Down to Heraclas (A. D. 230), the Bishop of
Alexandria, being the sole Egyptian Bishop, was called 'Abba'
(father), and his clergy 'elders.' From his time more bishops
were created, who then received the name of 'Abba,' and
consequently the name of 'Papa' ('ab-aba,' pater
patrum=grandfather) was appropriated to the primate. The Roman
account (inconsistent with facts) is that the name was first
given to Cyril, as representing the Bishop of Rome in the
Council of Ephesus. (Suicer, in voce). The name was fixed to
the Bishop of Rome in the 7th century."
_A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
lecture 3._
ALSO IN:
_J. Bingham,
Antiquities of the Christian Church,
book 2, chapter 2, section 7._
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Christian History,
section 130._
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
PAPACY: A. D. 42-461.
The early Bishops of Rome, to Leo the Great.
The following is the succession of the popes, according to
Roman Catholic authorities, during the first four hundred and
twenty years:
"Peter, to the year of Christ 67;
Linus,
Anencletus,
Clement; (to 77?)
Evaristus,
Alexander,
Xystus,
Telesphorus,
Hyginus, to 142;
Pius, to 157;
Anicetus, to 168;
Soter, to 177;
Eleutherius, to 193;
Victor, to 202;
Zephyrinus, to 219;
Callistus, to 223;
Urban, to 230;
Pontianus, to 235;
Anterus, to 236;
Fabian, to 250;
Cornelius, from 251 to 252;
Lucius, to 253;
Stephan, to 257;
Xystus II, to 258;
Dionysius, from 259 to 269;
Felix, to 274;
Eutychianus, to 283;
Caius, to 296;
Marcellinus, to 304;
Marcellus, after a vacancy of four years, from 308 to 310;
Eusebius, from the 20th of May to the 26th of September, 310;
Melchiades, from 311 to 314;
Silvester, from 314 to 335. …
Mark was chosen on the 18th of January 336,
and died on the 7th of October of the same year.
Julius I, from 337 to 352, the steadfast defender of St.
Athanasius. …
The less steadfast Liberius, from 352 to 366, purchased, in
358 his return from exile by an ill-placed condescension to
the demands of the Arians. He, however, soon redeemed .the
honour which he had forfeited by this step, by his
condemnation of the council of Rimini, for which act he was
again driven from his Church. During his banishment, the Roman
clergy were compelled to elect the deacon Felix in his place,
or probably only as administrator of the Roman Church. When
Liberius returned to Rome, Felix fled from the city, and died
in the country, in 365.
Damasus, from 366 to 384, by birth a Spaniard, had, at the
very commencement of his pontificate, to assert his rights
against a rival named Ursicinus, who obtained consecration
from some bishops a few days after the election of Damasus.
The faction of Ursicinus was the cause of much bloodshed. …
Siricius, from 385 to 389, was, although Ursicinus again
endeavoured to intrude himself, unanimously chosen by the
clergy and people. …
Anastasius, from 398 to 402; a pontiff, highly extolled by his
successor, and by St. Jerome, of whom the latter says, that he
was taken early from this earth, because Rome was not longer
worthy of him, and that he might not survive the desolation of
the city by Alaric. He was succeeded by Innocent I, from 402
to 417. … During the possession of Rome by Alaric [see ROME:
A. D. 408-410], Innocent went to Ravenna, to supplicate the
emperor, in the name of the Romans, to conclude a peace with
the Goths. The pontificate of his successor, the Greek
Zosimus, was only of twenty one months.
{2422}
The election of Boniface, from 418 to 422, was disturbed by
the violence of the archdeacon Eulalius, who had attached a
small party to his interests. … He was followed by Celestine
I, from 422 to 432, the combatant of Nestorianism and of
Semipelagianism. To Sixtus III, from 432 to 440, the
metropolitans, Helladius of Tarsus, and Eutherius of Tyana,
appealed, when they were threatened with deposition at the
peace between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. Leo the Great,
from 440 to 461, is the first pope of whom we possess a
collection of writings: they consist of 96 discourses on
festivals, and 141 epistles. By his high and well-merited
authority, he saved Rome, in 452, from the devastation of the
Huns; and induced Attila, named 'the scourge of God,' to
desist from his invasion of Italy [see HUNS: A. D. 452].
Again, when, in 457 [455], the Vandal king Geiserich entered
Rome [see ROME: A. D. 455], the Romans were indebted to the
eloquent persuasions of their holy bishop for the
preservation, at least, of their lives."
_J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 2, pages 213-215._
"For many centuries the bishops of Rome had been comparatively
obscure persons: indeed, Leo was the first really great man
who occupied the see, but he occupied it under circumstances
which tended without exception to put power in his hand. …
Circumstances were thrusting greatness upon the see of St.
Peter: the glory of the Empire was passing into her hands, the
distracted Churches of Spain and Africa, harassed and torn in
pieces by barbarian hordes and wearied with heresies, were in
no position to assert independence in any matter, and were
only too glad to look to any centre whence a measure of
organization and of strength seemed to radiate; and the popes
had not been slow in rising to welcome and promote the
greatness with which the current and tendency of the age was
investing them. Their rule seems to have been, more than
anything else, to make the largest claim, and enforce as much
of it as they could, but the theory of papal power was still
indeterminate, vague, unfixed. She was Patriarch of the West
—what rights did that give her? … Was her claim … a claim of
jurisdiction merely, or did she hold herself forth as a
doctrinal authority in a sense in which other bishops were
not? In this respect, again, the claim into which Leo entered
was indefinite and unformulated. … The Imperial instincts of
old Rome are dominant in him, all that sense of discipline,
order, government—all the hatred of uniformity, individuality,
eccentricity. These are the elements which make up Leo's mind.
He is above all things a governor and an administrator. He has
got a law of ecclesiastical discipline, a supreme canon of
dogmatic truth, and these are his instruments to subdue the
troubled world. … The rule which governed Leo's conduct as
pope was a very simple one, it was to take every opportunity
which offered itself for asserting and enforcing the authority
of his see: he was not troubled with historical or scriptural
doubts or scruples which might cast a shadow of indecision,
'the pale cast of thought,' on his resolutions and actions. To
him the papal authority had come down as the great inheritance
of his position; it was identified in his mind with the order,
the authority, the discipline, the orthodoxy which he loved so
dearly; it suited exactly his Imperial ambition, in a word,
his 'Roman' disposition and character, and he took it as his
single great weapon against heresy and social confusion."
_C. Gore,
Leo the Great,
chapters 6 and 7._
PAPACY: A. D. 461-604.
The succession of Popes from Leo the Great
to Gregory the Great.
The successor of Leo the Great, "the Sardinian Hilarius, from
461 to 468, had been one of his legates at the council of
Ephesus in 449. … The zeal of Simplicius, from 468 to 483, was
called into action chiefly by the confusion occasioned in the
east by the Monophysites. The same may be said of Felix II (or
III) from 483 to 492, in whose election the prefect Basilius
concurred, as plenipotentiary of king Odoacer. Gelasius I,
from 492 to 496, and Anastasius II, laboured, but in vain, in
endeavouring to heal the schism, formed by Acacius, at
Constantinople. This schism occasioned a division in Rome at
the election of a new pontiff. The senator Festus had promised
the emperor that he would enforce the reception of the
Henoticon at Rome; and by means of corruption established
against the deacon Symmachus, who had in his favour the
majority of voices, a powerful party, which chose Laurence as
antipope. Again was a double election the cause of bloody
strife in the streets of Rome, until the Arian king,
Theodoric, at Ravenna, declared for Symmachus, who gave to his
rival the bishopric of Luceria. … More tranquil was the
pontificate of the succeeding pope, Hormisdas, from 514 to
523, and made illustrious by the restoration of peace, in 519,
in the eastern Church.
John I died at Ravenna, in 519, in prison, into which he was
cast by the suspicious Theodoric, after his return from
Constantinople.
Felix III (or IV) from 526 to 530, was chosen by the Romans,
at the command of the king. At short intervals, followed
Boniface II, from 530 to 532; and John II, from 533 to 535.
Agapite I went, at the desire of the Gothic king, Theodatus,
to obtain peace from the emperor, to Constantinople, where he
died in 536.
Sylverius died, in 540, during his second exile, on the island
of Palmaria. … Vigilius, who was ordained in 537, and who
became lawful pope in 540, was compelled to remain in the
east, from 546 to 554, sometimes a prisoner in Constantinople,
and sometimes in exile. He died at Syracuse, on his return to
Rome, in 555. Pelagius I, from 555 to 560, found difficulty in
obtaining an acknowledgement of his election, as, by his
condemnation of the three articles, he was considered in the
west as a traitor to the council of Chalcedon, and because
there existed a suspicion that he was accessory to the death
of Vigilius.
John III, from 560 to 573, beheld the commencement of the
Lombard dominion in Italy.
Benedict I, from 574 to 578, and Pelagius II, from 578 to 590,
ruled the Church during the melancholy times of the Lombard
devastations. One of the most splendid appearances in the
series of the Roman pontiffs was that of Gregory the Great,
from 590 to 604."
_J. J. I. Döllinger,
History of the Church,
volume 2, pages 213-217._
{2423}
"Pope Pelagius died on the 8th of February, 590. The people of
Rome … were at this time in the utmost straits. Italy lay
prostrate and miserable under the Lombard invasion; the
invaders now threatened Rome itself, and its inhabitants
trembled; famine and pestilence within the city produced a
climax of distress; an overflow of the Tiber at the time
aggravated the general alarm and misery; Gregory himself, in
one of his letters, compares Rome at this time to an old and
shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by a
daily storm, its planks rotten and sounding of wreck. In this
state of things all men's thoughts at once turned to Gregory.
The pope was at this period the virtual ruler of Rome, and the
greatest power in Italy; and they must have Gregory as their
pope; for, if anyone could save them, it was he. His abilities
in public affairs had been proved; all Rome knew his character
and attainments; he had now the further reputation of eminent
saintliness. He was evidently the one man for the post; and
accordingly he was unanimously elected by clergy, senate, and
people. But he shrank from the proffered dignity. There was
one way by which he might possibly escape it. No election of a
pope could at this time take effect without the emperor's
confirmation, and an embassy had to be sent to Constantinople
to obtain it. Gregory therefore sent at the same time a letter
to the emperor (Mauricius, who had succeeded Tiberius in 582),
imploring him to withhold his confirmation; but it was
intercepted by the prefect of the city, and another from the
clergy, senate, and people sent in its place, entreating
approval of their choice. … At length the imperial
confirmation of his election arrived. He still refused; fled
from the city in disguise, eluding the guards set to watch the
gates, and hid himself in a forest cave. Pursued and
discovered by means, it is said, of a supernatural light, he
was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St.
Peter, and at once ordained on the 3rd of September, 590. …
Having been once placed in the high position he so little
coveted, he rose to it at once, and fulfilled its multifarious
duties with remarkable zeal and ability. His comprehensive
policy, and his grasp of great issues, are not more remarkable
than the minuteness of the details, in secular as well as
religious matters, to which he was able to give his personal
care. And this is the more striking in combination with the
fact that, as many parts of his writings show, he remained all
the time a monk at heart, thoroughly imbued with both the
ascetic principles and the narrow credulity of contemporary
monasticism. His private life, too, was still in a measure
monastic: the monastic simplicity of his episcopal attire is
noticed by his biographer; he lived with his clergy under
strict rule, and in 595 issued a synodal decree substituting
clergy for the boys and secular persons who had formerly
waited on the pope in his chamber."
_J. Barmby,
Gregory the Great,
chapter 2._
"Of the immense energy shown by St. Gregory in the exercise of
his Principate, of the immense influence wielded by him both
in the East and in the West, of the acknowledgment of his
Principate by the answers which emperor and patriarch made to
his demands and rebukes, we possess an imperishable record in
the fourteen books of his letters which have been preserved to
us. They are somewhat more than 850 in number. They range over
every subject, and are addressed to every sort of person. If
he rebukes the ambition of a patriarch, and complains of an
emperor's unjust law, he cares also that the tenants on the
vast estates of the Church which his officers superintend at a
distance should not be in any way harshly treated. … The range
of his letters is so great, their detail so minute, that they
illuminate his time and enable us to form a mental picture,
and follow faithfully that pontificate of fourteen years,
incessantly interrupted by cares and anxieties for the
preservation of his city, yet watching the beginnings and
strengthening the polity of the western nations, and
counterworking the advances of the eastern despotism. The
divine order of greatness is, we know, to do and to teach.
Few, indeed, have carried it out on so great a scale as St.
Gregory. The mass of his writing preserved to us exceeds the
mass preserved to us from all his predecessors together, even
including St. Leo, who with him shares the name of Great, and
whose sphere of action the mind compares with his. If he
became to all succeeding times an image of the great
sacerdotal life in his own person, so all ages studied in his
words the pastoral care, joining him with St. Gregory of
Nazianzum and St. Chrysostom. The man who closed his life at
sixty-four, worn out, not with age, but with labour and bodily
pains, stands, beside the learning of St. Jerome, the perfect
episcopal life and statesmanship of St. Ambrose, the
overpowering genius of St. Augustine, as the fourth doctor of
the western Church, while he surpasses them all in that his
doctorship was seated on St. Peter's throne. If he closes the
line of Fathers, he begins the period when the Church, failing
to preserve a rotten empire in political existence, creates
new nations; nay, his own hand has laid for them their
foundation-stones."
_T. W. Allies,
The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
from St. Leo I. to St. Gregory I.,
pages 309-335._
See, also,
ROME: A. D. 590-640.
PAPACY: A. D. 604-731.
The succession of Popes.
Sabinian, A. D. 604-606;
Boniface III., 607;
Boniface IV., 608-615;
Deusdedit, 615-618;
Boniface V., 619-625;
Honorius I., 625-638;
Severinus, 640;
John IV., 640-642;
Theodore I., 642-649;
Martin I., 649-655;
Eugenius I., 655-657;
Vitalian, 657-672;
Adeodatus II., 672-676;
Donus I., 676-678;
Agatho, 678-682;
Leo II., 682-683;
Benedict II., 684-685;
John V., 685-686;
Canon, 686-687;
Sergius I.,687-701;
John VI., 701-705;
John VII., 705-707;
Sisinnius, 708;
Constantine, 708-715;
Gregory II., 715-731.
PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
Rise of the Papal Sovereignty at Rome.
The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at
Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the
attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish
image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC
CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently,
but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt.
"The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for
the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers,
elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in
some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the
project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But
another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed
Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the
Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of
the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the
exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope
Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such
effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna
recovered.
{2424}
In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III.
"The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed
by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope
consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached
Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were
solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to
press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope
boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which
excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and
all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to
suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught,
and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end,
already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this
time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political
independence under the guidance and protection of the popes;
but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to
reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by
Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was
still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III.
thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations
with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince
to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was
now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna,
for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control
of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their
external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus
held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the
Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son
of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the
eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole
of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled
the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when
Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch
retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors
in central Italy ended."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 2._
The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the
throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending
their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally
beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own.
Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to
their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne
finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the
bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a
spiritual principality.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._
ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 15._
See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
PAPACY: A. D. 731-816.
The succession of Popes.
Gregory III., A. D. 731-741;
Zacharias, 741-752;
Stephen I. (or II.), 752;
Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757;
Paul I., 757-767;
Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772;
Hadrian I., 772-795;
Leo III., 795-816.
PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.
Origin of the Papal States.
The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.
As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D.
755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil
the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to
give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all
over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in
the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as
should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna,
Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli,
Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari,
supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni,
Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni
were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22
cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the
Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was
established."
_J; E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 3, chapter 10._
"An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the
negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a
restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands
failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or
Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St.
Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of
victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the
keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit
them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus
the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district …
which, with some few changes, has been held by his
successors."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 15._
"When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up
arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son
Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the
Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius
in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made
northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish
empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of
reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow,
he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the
pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed,
although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the
Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman
Church twenty years before."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 4._
"It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of
endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne]
amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island
of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and
Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This
rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could
not give away what he did not possess, and we know that
Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks
till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these
gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right
of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of
acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and
the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that
the properties were granted only under some form of feudal
vassalage."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 4, chapter 16._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._
{2425}
"Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by
the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that
belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of
other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium
utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts
been ever actually reduced into possession."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 10._
PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).
Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."
"Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe,
perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the
donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the
spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an
epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the
liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine.
According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors
was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of
baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was
physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte
withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared
his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and
resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of
Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was
productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes
were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of
Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes
were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal
gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and
irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the
ecclesiastical State."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._
"But this is not all, although this is what historians, in
admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon.
The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his
clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them
enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the
same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial
office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the
diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre,
and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice
of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old
imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German
Emperors."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 7, and foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
volume 1, page 817._
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 8, number 8._
PAPACY: A. D. 800.
The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.
PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.
The succession of Popes.
Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817;
Paschal I., 817-:824;
Eugene II., 824-827;
Valentine, 827;
Gregory IV., 827-844;
Sergius II., 844-847;
Leo IV., 847-855;
Benedict III.; 855-858:
Nicholas I., 858-867;
Hadrian II., 867-872;
John VIII., 872-882;
Marinus: 882-884;
Hadrian III., 884-885;
Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891;
Formosus, 891-896;
Boniface VI., 896;
Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897;
Romanus, 897-898;
Theodore II., 898;
John IX., 898-900;
Benedict IV., 900-908;
Leo V., 908;
Sergius III., 904-911;
Anastasius III., 911-918;
Lando, 913-914;
John X., 914-928;
Leo VI., 928-929;
Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981;
John XI., 981-986;
Leo VII., 936-989;
Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942:
Marinus II.,942-946;
Agapetus II., 946-956;
John XII., 956-964;
Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965;
Benedict V., 964-965;
John XIII., 965-972;
Benedict VI., 972-974;
Donus II., 974-975;
Benedict VII., 975-984;
John XIV., 984-985;
John XV., 985-996;
Gregory V., 996-999;
John XVI., antipope, 997-998;
Sylvester II., 999-1003;
John XVII., 1003;
John XVIII., 1003-1009;
Sergius IV., 1009-1012:
Benedict VIII., 1012-1024;
John XIX., 1024-1033;
Benedict IX., 1033-1044;
Sylvester III., antipope, 1044;
Gregory VI., 1044-1046;
Clement II., 1046-1047;
Benedict IX., 1047-1048;
Damasus II., 1048;
Leo IX., 1049-1054;
Victor II., 1055-1057;
Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058:
Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059;
Nicholas II., 1058-1061;
Alexander II., 1061-1073.
PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
The False Decretals.
"There existed in each of the national churches, a collection
of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as
circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in
Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently
attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle
of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared
in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but
into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private
collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence
of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This
recension contained also a number of forged documents. There
were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes,
from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of
other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also
contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine
[see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as
they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic
arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in
matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of
those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on
the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect
their essential character."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 2, page 195._
"Various opinions exist as to the time at which this
collection was made, and the precise date of its publication.
Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A.
D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the
collection did not appear until after the death of
Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an
earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered
in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that
year. All that can be determined is that most probably the
Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence,
about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to
discover their real author. The spuriousness of these
Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators,
with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age
in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in
vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. …
Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other
grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth
century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and
historical inaccuracies.
{2426}
Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the
Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the
several Epistles profess to have been written by different
pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very
barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers
of the first century. … The success of this forgery would
appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and
confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose
time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and
resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made
use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority
and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The
name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many
persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a
completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was
highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently
called Pseudo-Isidorus."
_J. E. Riddle,
History of the Papacy,
volume 1, pages 405-407._
ALSO IN:
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8._
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 5, chapter 4._
_M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope,
volume 1, page 317._
_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 9._
_H. C. Lea,
Studies in Christian History,
pp. 43-76._
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 4, section 60._
PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
Demoralization of the Church.
Degradation of the Holy See.
Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.
"No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into
which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome,
had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the
Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known
among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum,
and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid
remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the
Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,'
says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani
and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When
Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome,
he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the
house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found
their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks,
contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by
women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution
to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of
Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the
case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At
the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body
of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after
subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three
fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was
subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years
that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into
the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her
equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.
See ROME: A. D. 903-964].
These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and
beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic
tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover,
and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter,
Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil
government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the
then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen,
under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in
keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says
Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for
courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages
to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were
spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their
representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off
by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received
in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D.
974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation,
plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he
could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John
XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of
money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the
Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal
bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was
only prevented by the general indignation excited by the
report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was
consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of
ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and
murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin;
and, when her father would not assent except on the condition
of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and
consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of
the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of
these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the
world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had
perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it
over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to
luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times
as have been above described … we should have felt for
certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it
must be by some external power; she was helpless and
resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was
no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III.
(A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect
character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate
Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to
work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin
that reformation which ended in the purification and
monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his
Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever
should make any office or station in the Church a subject of
purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited
with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his
own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as
follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me
the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without
price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his
first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be
thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of
the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those
imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had
introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the
instrument of his general reformation.
{2427}
The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he
introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote
some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who
had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for
a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far
from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the
world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was
arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in
those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived
free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too
generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have
come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his
predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his
intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three
months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of
his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to
create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a
high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester
III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in
the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the
Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria
Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to
preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of
troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who
molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits
of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had
cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. …
This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made
his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came
into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri,
a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was
allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the
abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had
been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a
monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was
persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself
and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the
Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement
II., a man of excellent character, died within the year.
Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three
or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical
duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now
we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck
his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but
'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that
Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the
Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been
called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope
from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a
young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his
superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as
Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo,
and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful
man."
_J. H. Newman,
Essays Critical and Historical,
volume 2, pages 255-265._
See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057;
and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
PAPACY: A. D. 1053.
Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church
to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
PAPACY: A. D. 1054.
The Filioque Controversy.
Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY;
also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
Hildebrand and Henry IV.
The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII.
Empire and Papacy in conflict.
The War of Investitures.
"Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German
origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the
monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his
uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned
Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and
formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or
Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope
Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him
confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together
with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri.
He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his
death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where
he had previously resided, and where, according to several
writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his
youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where
he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on
the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his
preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the
new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a
monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own
authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048,
and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing
him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him
for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised
him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically
elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance;
laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he
caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election
was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was
the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor.
From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the
Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh.
Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of
San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end
he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having
renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees
of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and
against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were
fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at
Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm
in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply
wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or
authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as
well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of
the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but
they were soon undeceived.
{2428}
Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope
Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most
important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of
this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground:
he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on
the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to
their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the
two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates
were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by
this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the
freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no
promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice
of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the
struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first
token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that
time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a
new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and
made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory
VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo
IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and
holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity
to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of
their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned
five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the
papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the
East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated
itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by
Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius
had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation
took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin
observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled
meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being
dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only
renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He
then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to
Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman
clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor
Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that
prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand
selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the
emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his
entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried
him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the
clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II.
The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels
of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor
on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis
[October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of
his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a
child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the
regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had
scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when
the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope
without any imperial intervention. In the absence of
Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the
former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on
Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the
throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the
ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.
_Count de Montalambert,
The Monks of the West,
book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6)._
Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again
the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand
from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was
obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the
head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the
support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of
Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his
rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was
succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's
influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand
himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal
tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who
should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and
conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he
protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the
papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory
thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the
burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an
article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the
approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed
only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV.,
King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place,
and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice
of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my
prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not
allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go
unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration
beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on
the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the
right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been
crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to
himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when
it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the
combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of
Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the
authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the
objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of
Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as
his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding.
The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a
disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the
people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow
myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election
should have been ratified by the king and the princes of
Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so
pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to
allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was
accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the
following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a
papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect
to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master,
Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the
ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
volume 2, page 347-348._
{2429}
"From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of
clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their
celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This
prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the
observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and
menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed
over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for
Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a
married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that
marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large
proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who
handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It
was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not
less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular
cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic
ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them
that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with
unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical
celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of
the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating
image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for
the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of
conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with
adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched
which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such
anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession,
convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as
formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but
commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring
all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded
priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative
foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of
Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the
presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once,
effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the
complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the
most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless
bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or
were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among
men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more
unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by
austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal
menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the
continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed
over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce.
Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy
baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a
struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died
away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and
murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight
hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of
laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's
still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices
are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards
his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address
and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as
the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of
their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal
dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency
an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that
choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy.
Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest
bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no
less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a
reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could
not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the
coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the
crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of
battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was
placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as
they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage
and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal
Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the
powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the
Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this
'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military
service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have
exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged
to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence.
Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he
proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits
of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine,
and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men
to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to
universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman
Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of
Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted
in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene
conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every
house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and
pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his
legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to
the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his
territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon
being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his
competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent
successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the
Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European
continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to
Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved
and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in
Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and
the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for
their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied
severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer
assurance both of the right and the power to control every
other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the
civilized world."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Hildebrand
(Edinburgh Review, April, 1845)._
{2430}
"At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons
against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who
enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of
the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened
from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against
Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by
harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope
of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the
dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by
his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope,
sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out
(still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He
wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant
confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother
and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated
councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church
properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion
of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies,
soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy
resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod
(February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical
penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and
five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban
on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the
same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture,
which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric
or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the
rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of
excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory
caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in
order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking
measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were
involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was
threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom
he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the
ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated
directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely
overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At
Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the
German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as
was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops.
The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at
Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm
against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and
Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of
Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious
voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course;
but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves
before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German
princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur
in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to
the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany
itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban
for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then
resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take
their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before
the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his
wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a
friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on
the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to
the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of
affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the
Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in
Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This
brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa
(January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till
evening during three days before he released him from the ban
at the intercession of Matilda."
_W. Moeller,
History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,
pages 256-258._
"It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took
place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the
popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the
brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse
of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any
sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his
engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned
at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character
in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a
penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the
Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the
Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity,
disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of
policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to
his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three
successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy
court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a
penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was
difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his
fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of
Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the
bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of
the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the
fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The
conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly
four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a
place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of
the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes
and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the
Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released
from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights
of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach
of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to
proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms
to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of
that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion,
proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends
the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as
to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification.
'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half
contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his
lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more
guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been
softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart.
… Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither
the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a
Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the
proposed treachery.
{2431}
Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of
open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to
throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not
heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed
at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their
choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on
the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by
the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in
Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual
violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and
greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges
and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of
excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their
obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon
calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates
at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing
an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory
for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At
the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is
defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of
the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in
the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry
crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before
Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city,
expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates
to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the
monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults
it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful
attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of
March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the
treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the
anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets.
The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John
Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the
Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle
of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by
Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy
See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon
the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into
mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of
his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at
Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to
end."
_W. S. Lilly,
The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages
(Contemporary Review, August, 1882)._
Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving
Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy
with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of
another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures
was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms.
"Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one
much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State
substance. The more important elections should be henceforth
made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to
interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other
electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in
fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope;
who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in
Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey
were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not,
however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and
crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage
for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in
Germany to find place before consecration, being the same
arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict
between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."
_R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 9._
ALSO IN:
_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
book 2._
_W. R. W. Stephens.
Hildebrand and His Times._
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
books 6-8._
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4._
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122;
CANOSSA;
ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
PAPACY: A. D. 1059.
Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.
"According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal
vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people
belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in
almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the
selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was
absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however,
by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the
Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear
that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom
of choice any further than to make their own confirmation
necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and
Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent
competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The
bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly
elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But
their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had
received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly
despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of
Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be
confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was
subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial
prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho
the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the
prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of
Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of
naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument
is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon
emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one
instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not
uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to
ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however,
conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means
of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity
into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very
good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed
to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been
transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry
IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the
possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a
decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but
with a remarkable variation from the original form.
{2432}
The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the
neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope
as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme
pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests
and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and
afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be
presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter
to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should
personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the
foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave
of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of
the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other
vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether
for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of
discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 4, number 1._
PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
Donation of the Countess Matilda.
"The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface,
Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry
III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she
succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca,
Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho,
son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their
union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative
ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally
appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted
daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory
VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the
difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this
Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her
dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077,
confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102,
entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S.
Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner
'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original
deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of
confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories
conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits.
However, it is generally thought that they comprised the
district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying
on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from
Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged
75."
_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
page 235, foot-note._
See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154.
The succession of Popes.
Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087;
Urban II., 1088-1099;
Pascal 11., 1099-1118;
Gelasius 11., 1118-1119;
Callistus II., 1119-1124;
Honorius II., 1124-1130;
Innocent II., 1130-1143;
Celestine II., 1143-1144;
Lucius II., 1144-1145;
Eugene III., 1145-1153;
Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.
PAPACY: A. D. 1094.
Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade.
The Council of Clermont.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.
PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.
Continued conflict with the Empire.
The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.
"The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected,
in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the
glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had
been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they
aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising
tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the
contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest
supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of
Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell
of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her
possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the
Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands
which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the
Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source
of contention to two powers already jealous of one another.
The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full
scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old
Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an
equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more
deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and
Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard
Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the
Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of
the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by
Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to
1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was
a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great
Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long
refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with
dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to
fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D.
1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the
unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had
maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the
Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in
adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he
asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used
his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII.
at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was
reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the
ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent
was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative
genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his
clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his
calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides
Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East,
the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the
conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203],
and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection
of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the
crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by
diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy
and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church
[see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning,
though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement
which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church.
The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical
sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. …
{2433}
By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers
and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there
grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour.
Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new
enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical
system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of
followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the
Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor
and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed
at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the
truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once
into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great
reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The
reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the
skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the
Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the
thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the
protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in
sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken
and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected
with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control.
Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased
in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the
popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede
the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common
people, but in the universities as well, did their influence
become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service
of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached
Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf
of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The
Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's
guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won
sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic
was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North
Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre;
if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his
independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of
Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and
consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic.
Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into
the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal
policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …
See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their
hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep
the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their
purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the
stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in
the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].
By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were
crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were
destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy
only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin
influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French
popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the
Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the
power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a
connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of
France."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
volume 1, pages 18-23._
ALSO IN:
_T. L. Kington,
History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans._
PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198.
The succession of Popes.
Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159;
Alexander III., 1159-1181;
Lucius III., 1181-1185;
Urban III., 1185-1187;
Gregory VIII., 1187;
Clement III., 1187-1191;
Celestine III., 1191-1198.
PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170.
Conflict of Church and State in England.
Becket and Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
in the States of the Church.
"Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the
Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested
the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish
sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the
Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves
Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were
ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not
gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first
Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian
prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath
of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from
the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and
compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise
the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained
from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands
which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first
time an undisputed title to the Papal States."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
volume 1. page 21._
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294.
The succession of Pores.
Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216;
Honorius II., 1216-1227;
Gregory IX., 1227-1241;
Celestine IV., 1241;
Innocent IV., 1243-1204;
Alexander IV., 1254-1261;
Urban IV., 1261-1264;
Clement IV., 1265-1268;
Gregory X., 1271-1276;
Innocent V., 1276;
Hadrian V., 1276;
John XXI., 1276-1277;
Nicholas III., 1277-1280;
Martin IV., 1281-1285;
Honorius IV., 1285-1287;
Nicholas IV., 1288-1292;
Celestine V., 1294.
PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303.
The acme of Papal power.
The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.
"The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most
strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In
each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued,
independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church,
control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of
this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so
many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central
parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was
taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a
diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the
Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch
and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either
before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way
of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia
acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his
interference with their ecclesiastical institutions.
{2434}
The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a
hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of
kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an
inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are
placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent),
'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the
night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical,
which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the
royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only
are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may
apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no
quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction.
'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent
to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to
judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all
public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before
Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general
arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout
Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the
public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The
noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of
Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in
other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during
this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more
the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Miley,
History of the Papal States,
volume 3, book 1, chapter 3._
_M. Gosselin,
The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages,
part 2, chapter 3._
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1203.
The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213.
Subjugation of the English King John.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.
PAPACY: A. D. 1215.
The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars
of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.
See ITALY: A. D. 1215.
PAPACY: A. D. 1266.
Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
to Charles of Anjou.
See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.
PAPACY: A. D. 1268.
The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis,
affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.
PAPACY: A. D. 1275.
Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne
and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
PAPACY: A. D. 1279.
The English Statute of Mortmain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.
PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII.
His conflict with Philip IV. of France.
The "Babylonish Captivity."
Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.
Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a
man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder
of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in
his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first
persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his
election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and
then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the
good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept
him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of
the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election
was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he
decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in
Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical
dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered
the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage,
for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of
the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was
established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated
22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of
sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every
subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St.
Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome,
and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the
Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his
tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only
persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who
flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at
the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that
Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100
years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25.
Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and
temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which
proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope
had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from
the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the
arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in
preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they
tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the
most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman
See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the
archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his
troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal.
… Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the
laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights
of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the
king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair,
like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to
contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The
pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D.
1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the
clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any
payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent.
The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or
treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown.
This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so
modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free
benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years
after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of
sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator
mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all
privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and
people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now
familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the
superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and
prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons.
{2435}
The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating
the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope,
incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called
'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without
which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head
in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords,
the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the
church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is …
subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The
conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the
salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the
Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation,
appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey
any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope
resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the
excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of
Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England
to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having
sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring
envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering
Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40
miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately
raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some
of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and
burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a
dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these
had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was
one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so
inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on
the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but
for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably
delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place
rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome,
but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud
between the Church and her eldest son."
_G. Trevor,
Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
chapter 9._
"Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets
and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most
revolting features of the human character. Many of the
charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that
he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and
that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most
criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly
to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his
severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go
everywhere blackening his character. They have been
exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to
his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination,
formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance
claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in
arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his
predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in
fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part
of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy
had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its
decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is
to be set against the drama of Canossa."
_A. R. Pennington.
The Church in Italy,
chapter 6._
"The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach
by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king,
and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in
ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally
suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the
death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the
breach with France by electing a French pope; the others
insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of
the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election
of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing
his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his
quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly
come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V.,
was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he
resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College
crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and
two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned
to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian
writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.'
Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his
engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his
subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the
condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the
manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further
disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg
to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To
escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the
pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of
Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging
to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th
century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or
Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by
its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of
Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin,
was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his
residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after
succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left
his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful
wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent
exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase
her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this
inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the
account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan
crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount
suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and
territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."
_G. Trevor,
Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire,
chapters 9-10._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 12 (volume 5)._
_J. E. Darras.
History of the Catholic Church,
period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)_.
PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377.
The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.
The following is the succession of the Popes during the
Avignon period:
Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303;
Benedict XI., 1303-1304;
Clement V., 1305-1314;
John XXII., 1316-1334;
Benedict XII., 1334-1342;
Clement VI., 1342-1352;
Innocent VI., 1352-1362;
Urban V., 1362-1370;
Gregory XI., 1371-1378.
{2436}
"The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less
dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by
a College of Cardinals in which the French element
predominated, they gave a French character to the government
of the Church. This character was at variance with the
principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. …
The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of
French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French
Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of
the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that
the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France.
This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the
general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in
the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the
ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds
which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See
were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon
period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion
that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by
the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this
general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so
weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by
which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the
Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the
least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years
offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a
writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period,
emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the
Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with
the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The
extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn
is an unfair exaggeration."
_L. Pastor,
History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, pages 58-60._
PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393.
Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347.
Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor.
The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.
PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354.
Rienzi's revolution at Rome.
See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation of the States of the Church
and the return from Avignon to Rome.
Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.
"Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped
by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have
come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer
offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of
affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. …
The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had
fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic
measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely
lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a
Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his
military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy
of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles
were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban
V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into
obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined
"to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries
of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury
of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief
stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the
fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of
three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which
happened three months after his return, was regarded by many
as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had
returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced
to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return
through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The
French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy
among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not
associated with any of the elements of state life existing in
Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church
immediately under their power involved the destruction of the
small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the
democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise
enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to
content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal
obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French
governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt
against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to
her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the
word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in
the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of
Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy
might have been swept away if Florence could have brought
about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back
from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised
to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal
excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves
of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and
France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their
cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could
save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse
refused to let him mount when he set out on his
journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties
of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of
its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to
be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some
small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed
only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A
congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was
anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to
Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were
embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now
inevitable."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2)._
See, also,
FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.
PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378.
Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood.
Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
{2437}
PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII.
The Great Western Schism.
Battle in Rome and siege and partial
destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
The Council of Pisa.
Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.
"For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal
Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the
States of the Church were harried to death by contending
factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377.
The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto;
the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived
only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the
election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St.
Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round
the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman
for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal
Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was
finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an
intended compromise between the Italian party and the French
party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini
presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope
had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his
name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the
Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed
him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was
arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news
was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to
rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to
still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the
conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was
elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and
finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such,
however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with
difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the
ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope.
This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in
the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned
by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within
its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew
to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they
afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert
of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who
took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender
the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his
compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the
papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with
citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed
force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and
Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy,
the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the
undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St.
Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the
Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the
Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a
year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379,
the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of
Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and
imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great
battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the
anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to
surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage
done to it during this siege must have been very great. In
some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its
marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the
Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it
for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they
passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and
razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an
attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything
by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off;
but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts,
and the attempt was given up."
_W. W. Story,
Castle St. Angelo,
chapter 5._
"Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal
for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and
the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to
have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his
election he began to act with harshness to the members of the
Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular
princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11
Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome,
owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a
written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested
against the election, as not having been free, and they called
on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi,
in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of
the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on
the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French
Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of
Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at
Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were
two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at
Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The
latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France,
Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the
remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was
succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on
his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned
at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of
affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at
Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other
nations acting with them, were:
Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404;
Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406;
Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409;
Alexander V., a native of Candia,
who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410;
and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417.
…
Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at
Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as
such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement
and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the
time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395,
Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of
his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus,
Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate
the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs,
Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate.
{2438}
The same view was taken by most of the universities of
Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept
it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a
conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both
parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held
a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory
XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to
obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own
authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of
March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof,
and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of
Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were
present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12
archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102
absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the
generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13
Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and
collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and
civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England,
France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both
claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over
the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the
conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one
Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander
V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then
elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly
man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime,
Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still
adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland,
Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever.
"The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it
laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three
claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General
Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the
Church."
_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 20._
"The amount of evil wrought by the schism of 1378, the longest
known in the history of the Papacy, can only be estimated,
when we reflect that it occurred at a moment, when thorough
reform in ecclesiastical affairs was a most urgent need. This
was now utterly out of the question, and, indeed, all evils
which had crept into ecclesiastical life were infinitely
increased. Respect for the Holy See was also greatly impaired,
and the Popes became more than ever dependent on the temporal
power, for the schism allowed each Prince to choose which Pope
he would acknowledge. In the eyes of the people, the simple
fact of a double Papacy must have shaken the authority of the
Holy See to its very foundations. It may truly be said that
these fifty years of schism prepared the way for the great
Apostacy of the 16th century."
_L. Pastor,
History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, page 141._
ALSO IN:
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
volume 9, section 1._
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 13, chapters 1-5 (volume 6)._
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
sections 269-270 (volume 3)._
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 7)._
_St. C. Baddeley,
Charles III. of Naples and Urban VI._
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.
PAPACY: A. D. 1378-1415.
Rival Popes during the Great Schism.
Urban VI., A. D. 1378-1389 (Rome);
Clement VII., 1378-1394 (Avignon);
Boniface IX., 1389-1404 (Rome);
Benedict XIII., 1394-1423 (Avignon);
Innocent VII., 1404-1406 (Rome);
Gregory XII., 1406-1415 (Rome);
Alexander V., 1409-1410 (elected by the Council of Pisa);
John XXIII., 1410-1415.
PAPACY: A. D. 1386-1414.
Struggle of the Italian Popes against Ladislas of Naples.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.
The Council of Constance.
Election of Martin V.
Ending of the Great Schism and failure of Church Reform.
"In April, A. D. 1412, the Pope [John XXIII.], to preserve
appearances, opened at Rome the council which had been agreed
upon at Pisa for the reformation of the Church in her Head and
members. Quite a small number of bishops put in an appearance,
who, after having condemned the antipopes, and some heretical
propositions of Wycliffe and John Huss, hastily adjourned.
John, who does not seem to have had any very earnest wish to
correct his own life, and who, consequently, could not be
expected to be over solicitous about the correction of those
of others, was carefully provident to prevent the bishops
coming to Rome in excessive numbers. He had come to a secret
understanding with Ladislaus, his former enemy, that the
latter should have all the roads well guarded. Ladislaus soon
turned against the Pope, and forced him to quit Rome, and seek
refuge, first at Florence, and next at Bologna (A. D. 1413).
From this city John opened communications with the princes of
Europe with the purpose of fixing a place for holding the
council. … The Emperor Sigismund appointed the city of
Constance, where the council did, in fact, convene, November
1, A. D. 1414. … The abuses which prevailed generally
throughout the Church, and which were considerably increased
by the existence of three rival Popes, and by the various
theories on Church government called forth by the controversy,
greatly perplexed men's minds, and created much anxiety as to
the direction affairs might eventually take. This unsettled
state of feeling accounts for the unusually large number of
ecclesiastics who attended the council. There were 18,000
ecclesiastics of all ranks, of whom, when the number was
largest, 3 were patriarchs, 24 cardinals, 33 archbishops,
close upon 150 bishops, 124 abbots, 50 provosts, and 300
doctors in the various degrees. Many princes attended in
person. There were constantly 100,000 strangers in the city,
and, on one occasion, as many as 150,000, among whom were many
of a disreputable character. Feeling ran so high that, as
might have been anticipated, every measure was extreme. Owing
to the peculiar composition of the Council, at which only a
limited number of bishops were present, and these chiefly in
the interest of John XXIII., it was determined to decide all
questions, not by a majority of episcopal suffrages, but by
that of the representatives of the various nations, including
doctors. The work about to engage the Council was of a
threefold character, viz.,
1. To terminate the papal schism;
2. To condemn errors against faith, and particularly
those of Huss; and
3. To enact reformatory decrees.
… It was with some difficulty that John could be induced to
attend at Constance, and when he did finally consent, it was
only because he was forced to take the step by the
representations of others. …
{2439}
Regarding the Council as a continuation of that of Pisa, he
naturally thought that he would be recognized as the
legitimate successor of the Pope chosen by the latter. … All
questions were first discussed by the various nations, each
member of which had the right to vote. Their decision was next
brought before a general conference of nations, and this
result again before the next session of the Council. This plan
of organisation destroyed the hopes of John XXIII., who relied
for success on the preponderance of Italian prelates and
doctors. … To intimidate John, and subdue his resistance, a
memorial, written probably by an Italian, was put in
circulation, containing charges the most damaging to that
pontiff's private character. … So timely and effective was
this blow that John was thenceforth utterly destitute of the
energy and consideration necessary to support his authority,
or direct the affairs of the Council." In consequence, he sent
a declaration to the Council that, in order to give peace to
the Church, he would abdicate, provided his two rivals in the
Papacy, Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., would also resign.
Later, in March, 1415, he repeated this promise under oath.
The Emperor, Sigismund, was about to set out to Nizza to
induce the other claimants to resign, when John's conduct gave
rise to a suspicion that he did not intend to act in good
faith. He was charged with an intention to escape from the
Council, with the assistance of Frederic, Duke of Austria. He
now gave his promise under oath not to depart from the city
before the Council had dissolved. "But, notwithstanding these
protestations, John escaped (March 21, 1415), disguised as a
groom, during a great tournament arranged by the duke, and
made his way to Schaffhausen, belonging to the latter, thence
to Laufenburg and Freiburg, thence again to the fortress of
Brisac, whence he had intended to pass to Burgundy, and on to
Avignon. That the Council went on with its work after the
departure of John, and amid the general perplexity and
confusion, was entirely due to the resolution of the emperor,
the eloquence of Gerson [of the University of Paris], and the
indefatigable efforts of the venerable master, now cardinal,
d'Ailly. The following memorable decrees were passed …: 'A
Pope can neither transfer nor dissolve a general Council
without the consent of the latter, and hence the present
Council may validly continue its work even after the flight of
the Pope. All persons, without distinction of rank, even the
Pope himself, are bound by its decisions, in so far as these
relate to matters of faith, to the closing of the present
schism, and to the reformation of the Church of God in her
Head and members. All Christians, not excepting the Pope, are
under obligation to obey the Council.' … Pope John, after
getting away safe to Schaffhausen, complained formally of the
action of the Council towards himself, summoned all the
cardinals to appear personally before him within six days, and
sent memorials to the King of France [and others], …
justifying his flight. Still the Council went on with its
work; disposed, after a fashion, of the papal difficulty, and
of the cases of Buss and Jerome of Prague [whom it condemned
and delivered to the civil authorities, to be burned. …
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415].
In the meantime, Frederic, Margrave of Brandenburg, acting
under the joint order of Council and Emperor, arrested the
fugitive Pope at Freiburg, and led him a prisoner to
Radolfzell, near Constance, where 54 (originally 72) charges
—some of them of a most disgraceful character—extracted from
the testimony of a host of witnesses, were laid before him by
a committee of the Council." He attempted no defense, and on
May 29, 1415, John XXIII. was formally and solemnly deposed
and was kept in confinement for the next three years. In July,
Gregory XII. was persuaded to resign his papal claims and to
accept the dignity of Cardinal Legate of Ancona. Benedict
XIII., more obstinate, refused to give up his pretensions,
though abandoned even by the Spaniards, and was deposed, on
the 26th of July, 1417. "The three claimants to the papacy
having been thus disposed of, it now remained to elect a
legitimate successor to St. Peter. Previously to proceeding to
an election, a decree was passed providing that, in this
particular instance, but in no other, six deputies of each
nation should be associated with the cardinals in making the
choice." It fell upon Otho Colonna, "a cardinal distinguished
for his great learning, his purity of life, and gentleness of
disposition." In November, 1417, he was anointed and crowned
under the name of Martin V. The Council was formally closed on
the 16th of May following, without having accomplished the
work of Church reformation which had been part of its intended
mission. "Sigismund and the German nation, and for a time the
English also, insisted that the question of the reformation of
the Church, the chief points of which had been sketched in a
schema of 18 articles, should be taken up and disposed of
before proceeding to the election of a Pope." But in this they
were baffled. "Martin, the newly elected Pope, did not fully
carry out all the proposed reforms. It is true, he appointed a
committee composed of six cardinals and deputies from each
nation, and gave the work into their hands; but their councils
were so conflicting that they could neither come to a definite
agreement among themselves, nor would they consent to adopt
the plan of reform submitted by the Pope."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
sections 270-271 (volume 3)._
The election of Martin V. might have been a source of
unalloyed happiness to Christendom, if he had at once taken
the crucial question of Church Reform vigorously in hand; but
the Regulations of the Chancery issued soon after his
accession showed that little was to be expected from him in
this respect. They perpetuated most of the practices in the
Roman Court which the Synod had designated as abuses. Neither
the isolated measures afterwards substituted for the universal
reform so urgently required, nor the Concordats made with
Germany, the three Latin nations, and England, sufficed to
meet the exigencies of the case, although they produced a
certain amount of good. The Pope was indeed placed in a most
difficult position, in the face of the various and opposite
demands made upon him, and the tenacious resistance offered by
interests now long established to any attempt to bring things
back to their former state. The situation was complicated to
such a degree that any change might have brought about a
revolution.
{2440}
It must also be borne in mind that all the proposed reforms
involved a diminution of the Papal revenues; the regular
income of the Pope was small and the expenditure was very
great. For centuries, complaints of Papal exactions had been
made, but no one had thought of securing to the Popes the
regular income they required. … The delay of the reform, which
was dreaded by both clergy and laity, may be explained, though
not justified, by the circumstances we have described. It was
an unspeakable calamity that ecclesiastical affairs still
retained the worldly aspect caused by the Schism, and that the
much needed amendment was again deferred."
_L. Pastor,
History of the Popes, from the Close of the Middle Ages,
volume 1, pages 209-210._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 13, chapters 8-10 (volume 6)._
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 7)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1431.
Election of Eugenius IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
The Council of Basle.
Triumph of the Pope and defeat, once more, of Church Reform.
"The Papacy had come forth so little scathed from the perils
with which at one time these assemblies menaced it, that a
Council was no longer that word of terror which a little
before it had been. There was more than one motive for
summoning another, if indeed any help was to be found in them.
Bohemia, wrapt in the flames of the Hussite War, was scorching
her neighbours with fiercer fires than those by which she
herself was consumed. The healing of the Greek Schism was not
yet confessed to be hopeless, and the time seemed to offer its
favourable opportunities. No one could affirm that the
restoration of sound discipline, the reformation of the Church
in head and in members, had as yet more than begun. And thus,
in compliance with the rule laid down at the Council of
Constance,—for even at Rome they did not dare as yet openly to
set at nought its authority,—Pope Eugenius IV. called a third
Council together [1431], that namely of Basle. … Of those who
sincerely mourned over the Church's ills, the most part, after
the unhappy experience of the two preceding Councils, had so
completely lost all faith in these assemblies that slight
regard was at first yielded to the summons; and this Council
seemed likely to expire in its cradle as so many had done
before, as not a few should do after. The number of Bishops
and high Church dignitaries who attended it was never great. A
democratic element made itself felt throughout all its
deliberations; a certain readiness to resort to measures of a
revolutionary violence, such as leaves it impossible to say
that it had not itself to blame for much of its ill-success.
At the first indeed it displayed unlooked-for capacities for
work, entering into important negotiations with the Hussites
for their return to the bosom of the Church; till the Pope,
alarmed at these tokens of independent activity, did not
conceal his ill-will, making all means in his power to
dissolve the Council. This, meanwhile, growing in strength and
in self-confidence, re-affirmed all of strongest which had
been affirmed already at Pisa and Constance, concerning the
superiority of Councils over Popes; declared of itself that,
as a lawfully assembled Council, it could neither be
dissolved, nor the place of its meeting changed, unless by its
own consent; and, having summoned Eugenius and his Cardinals
to take their share in its labours, began the work of
reformation in earnest. Eugenius yielded for the time;
recalled the Bull which had hardly stopped short of
anathematizing the Council; and sent his legates to Basle.
Before long, however, he and the Council were again at strife;
Eugenius complaining, apparently with some reason, that in
these reforms one source after another of the income which had
hitherto sustained the Papal Court was being dried up, while
no other provision was made for the maintenance of its due
dignity, or even for the defraying of its necessary expenses.
As the quarrel deepened the Pope removed the seat of the
Council to Ferrara (September 18, 1437), on the plea that
negotiations with the envoys of the Greek Church would be more
conveniently conducted in an Italian city; and afterwards to
Florence. The Council refused to stir, first suspending
(January 24, 1438), then deposing the Pope (July 7, 1439), and
electing another, Felix V., in his stead; this Felix being a
retired Duke of Savoy, who for some time past had been playing
the hermit in a villa on the shores of the lake of Geneva.
See SAVOY: 11-15th CENTURIES.
The Council in this extreme step failed to carry public
opinion with it. It was not merely that Eugenius denounced his
competitor by the worst names he could think of, declaring him
a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Moloch, a Cerberus,
a Golden Calf, a second Mahomet, an anti-christ; but the
Church in general shrank back in alarm at the prospect of
another Schism, to last, it might be, for well-nigh another
half century. And thus the Council lost ground daily; its
members fell away; its confidence in itself departed; and,
though it took long in dying, it did in the end die a death of
inanition (June 23, 1448). Again the Pope remained master of
the situation, the last reforming Council,—for it was the
last,—having failed in all which it undertook as completely
and as ingloriously as had done the two which went before."
_R. C. Trench,
Lectures on Medieval Church History,
lecture 20._
"In the year 1438 the Emperor John and the Greek Patriarch
made their appearance at the council of Ferrara. In the
following year the council was transferred to Florence, where,
after long discussions, the Greek emperor, and all the members
of the clergy who had attended the council, with the exception
of the Bishop of Ephesus, adopted the doctrine of the Roman
church concerning the possession of the Holy Ghost, the
addition to the Nicene Creed, the nature of purgatory, the
condition of the soul after its separation from the body until
the day of judgment, the use of unleavened bread in the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the papal supremacy. The
union of the two churches was solemnly ratified in the
magnificent cathedral of Florence on the 6th of July 1439,
when the Greeks abjured their ancient faith in a vaster
edifice and under a loftier dome than that of their own
much-vaunted temple of St. Sophia. The Emperor John derived
none of the advantages he had expected from the simulated
union of the churches. Pope Eugenius, it is true, supplied him
liberally with money, and bore all the expenses both of the
Greek court and clergy during their absence from
Constantinople; he also presented the emperor with two
galleys, and furnished him with a guard of 300 men, well
equipped, and paid at the cost of the papal treasury; but his
Holiness forgot his promise to send a fleet to defend
Constantinople, and none of the Christian princes showed any
disposition to fight the battles of the Greeks, though they
took up the cross against the Turks.
{2441}
On his return John found his subjects indignant at the manner
in which the honour and doctrines of the Greek church had been
sacrificed in an unsuccessful diplomatic speculation. The
bishops who had obsequiously signed the articles of union at
Florence, now sought popularity by deserting the emperor, and
making a parade of their repentance, lamenting their
wickedness in falling off for a time from the pure doctrine of
the orthodox church. The only permanent result of this
abortive attempt at Christian union was to increase the
bigotry of the orthodox, and to furnish the Latins with just
grounds for condemning the perfidious dealings and bad faith
of the Greeks. In both ways it assisted the progress of the
Othoman power. The Emperor John, seeing public affairs in this
hopeless state, became indifferent to the future fate of the
empire, and thought only of keeping on good terms with the
sultan."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 4, chapter 2, section 6 (volume 2)._
Pope "Eugenius died, February 23, 1447; … but his successors
were able to secure the fruits of the victory [over the
Council of Basel] for a long course of years. The victory was
won at a heavy cost, both for the Popes and for Christendom;
for the Papacy recovered its ascendancy far more as a
political than as a religious power. The Pope became more than
ever immersed in the international concerns of Europe, and his
policy was a tortuous course of craft and intrigue, which in
those days passed for the new art of diplomacy. … To revert to
a basis of spiritual domination lay beyond the vision of the
energetic princes, the refined dilettanti, the dexterous
diplomatists, who sat upon the chair of St. Peter during the
age succeeding the Council of Basle. Of signs of uneasiness
abroad they could not be quite ignorant; but they sought to
divert men's minds from the contemplation of so perplexing a
problem as Church reform, by creating or fostering new
atmospheres of excitement and interest; … or at best (if we
may adopt the language of their apologists) they took
advantage of the literary and artistic movement then active in
Italy as a means to establish a higher standard of
civilisation which might render organic reform needless."
_R. L. Poole,
Wycliffe and Movements for Reform,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church, 6th period,
chapter 4 (volume 3)._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1438; and 1515-1518.
PAPACY: A. D. 1439.
Election of Felix V. (by the Council of Basle).
PAPACY: A. D. 1447-1455.
The pontificate of Nicolas V.
Recovery of character and influence.
Beginning of the Renaissance.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
PAPACY: A. D. 1455.
Election of Callistus III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1458.
Election of Pius II., known previously as the learned
Cardinal Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, historian and diplomatist.
PAPACY: A. D. 1464.
Election of Paul II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
The darkest age of Papal crime and vice.
Sixtus IV. and the Borgias.
The warrior Pontiff, Julius II.
"The impunity with which the Popes escaped the councils held
in the early part of the 15th century was well fitted to
inspire them with a reckless contempt for public opinion; and
from that period down to the Reformation, it would be
difficult to parallel among temporal princes the ambitious,
wicked, and profligate lives of many of the Roman Pontiffs.
Among these, Francesco della Rovere, who succeeded Paul II.
with the title of Sixtus IV., was not the least notorious.
Born at Savona, of an obscure family, Sixtus raised his
nephews, and his sons who passed for nephews, to the highest
dignities in Church and State, and sacrificed for their
aggrandisement the peace of Italy and the cause of Christendom
against the Turks. Of his two nephews, Julian, and Leonard
della Rovere, the former, afterwards Pope Julius II., was
raised to the purple in the second year of his uncle's
pontificate." It was this pope—Sixtus IV.—who had a part in
the infamous "Conspiracy of the Pazzi" to assassinate Lorenzo
de' Medici and his brother.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
"This successor of St. Peter took a pleasure in beholding the
mortal duels of his guards, for which he himself sometimes
gave the signal. He was succeeded [1484] by Cardinal Gian
Batista Cibò, a Genoese, who assumed the title of Innocent
VIII. Innocent was a weak man, without any decided principle.
He had seven children, whom he formally acknowledged, but he
did not seek to advance them so shamelessly as Sixtus had
advanced his 'nephews.' … Pope Innocent VIII. [who died July
25, 1492] was succeeded by the atrocious Cardinal Roderigo
Borgia, a Spaniard of Valencia, where he had at one time
exercised the profession of an advocate. After his election he
assumed the name of Alexander VI. Of 20 cardinals who entered
the conclave, he is said to have bought the suffrages of all
but five; and Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, whom he feared as a
rival, was propitiated with a present of silver that was a
load for four mules. Alexander's election was the signal for
flight to those cardinals who had opposed him. … Pope
Alexander had by the celebrated Vanozza, the wife of a Roman
citizen, three sons: John, whom he made Duke of Gandia, in
Spain; Cæsar and Geoffrey; and one daughter, Lucretia."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, pages 105, 108, 175, 177-178._
Under the Borgias, "treasons, assassinations, tortures, open
debauchery, the practice of poisoning, the worst and most
shameless outrages, are unblushingly and publicly tolerated in
the open light of heaven. In 1490, the Pope's vicar having
forbidden clerics and laics to keep concubines, the Pope
revoked the decree, 'saying that that was not forbidden,
because the life of priests and ecclesiastics was such that
hardly one was to be found who did not keep a concubine, or at
least who had not a courtesan.' Cæsar Borgia at the capture of
Capua 'chose forty of the most beautiful women, whom he kept
for himself; and a pretty large number of captives were sold
at a low price at Rome.' Under Alexander VI., 'all
ecclesiastics, from the greatest to the least, have concubines
in the place of wives, and that publicly. If God hinder it
not,' adds this historian, 'this corruption will pass to the
monks and religious orders, although, to confess the truth,
almost all the monasteries of the town have become
bawd–houses, without anyone to speak against it.' With respect
to Alexander VI., who loved his daughter Lucretia, the reader
may find in Burchard the description of the marvellous orgies
in which he joined with Lucretia and Cæsar, and the
enumeration of the prizes which he distributed.
{2442}
Let the reader also read for himself the story of the
bestiality of Pietro Luigi Farnese, the Pope's son, how the
young and upright Bishop of Fano died from his outrage, and
how the Pope, speaking of this crime as 'a youthful levity,'
gave him in this secret bull 'the fullest absolution from all
the pains which he might have incurred by human incontinence,
in whatever shape or with whatever cause.' As to civil
security, Bentivoglio caused all the Marescotti to be put to
death; Hippolyto d' Este had his brother's eyes put out in his
presence; Cæsar Borgia killed his brother; murder is consonant
with their public manners, and excites no wonder. A fisherman
was asked why he had not informed the governor of the town
that he had seen a body thrown into the water; 'he replied
that he had seen about a hundred bodies thrown into the water
during his lifetime in the same place, and that no one had
ever troubled about it.' 'In our town,' says an old historian,
'much murder and pillage was done by day and night, and hardly
a day passed but some one was killed.' Cæsar Borgia one day
killed Peroso, the Pope's favourite, between his arms and
under his cloak, so that the blood spurted up to the Pope's
face. He caused his sister's husband to be stabbed and then
strangled in open day, on the steps of the palace; count, if
you can, his assassinations. Certainly he and his father, by
their character, morals, open and systematic wickedness, have
presented to Europe the two most successful images of the
devil. … Despotism, the Inquisition, the Cicisbei, dense
ignorance, and open knavery, the shamelessness and the
smartness of harlequins and rascals, misery and vermin,—such
is the issue of the Italian Renaissance."
_H. A. Taine,
History of English Literature,
volume 1, pages 354-355._
"It is certain … that the profound horror with which the name
of Alexander VI. strikes a modern ear, was not felt among the
Italians at the time of his election. The sentiment of hatred
with which he was afterwards regarded arose partly from the
crimes by which his Pontificate was rendered infamous, partly
from the fear which his son Cesare inspired, and partly from
the mysteries of his private life which revolted even the
corrupt conscience of the 16th century. This sentiment of
hatred had grown to universal execration at the time of his
death. In course of time, when the attention of the Northern
nations had been directed to the iniquities of Rome, and when
the glaring discrepancy between Alexander's pretension as a
Pope and his conduct as a man had been apprehended, it
inspired a legend, which, like all legends, distorts the facts
which it reflects. Alexander was, in truth, a man eminently
fitted to close an old age and to inaugurate a new, to
demonstrate the paradoxical situation of the Popes by the
inexorable logic of his practical impiety, and to fuse two
conflicting world forces in the cynicism of supreme
corruption. … Alexander was a stronger and a firmer man than
his immediate predecessors. 'He combined,' says Guicciardini,
'craft with singular sagacity, a sound judgment with
extraordinary powers of persuasion; and to all the grave
affairs of life he applied ability and pains beyond belief.'
His first care was to reduce Rome to order. The old factions
of Colonna and Orsini, which Sixtus had scotched, but which
had raised their heads again during the dotage of Innocent,
were destroyed in his pontificate. In this way, as Machiavelli
observed, he laid the real basis for the temporal power of the
Papacy. Alexander, indeed, as a sovereign, achieved for the
Papal See what Louis XI. had done for the throne of France,
and made Rome on its small scale follow the type of the large
European monarchies. … Former Pontiffs had raised money by the
sale of benefices and indulgences: this, of course, Alexander
also practised—to such an extent, indeed, that an epigram
gained currency; 'Alexander sells the keys, the altars,
Christ. Well, he bought them; so he has a right to sell them.'
But he went further and took lessons from Tiberius. Having
sold the scarlet to the highest bidder, he used to feed his
prelate with rich benefices. When he had fattened him
sufficiently, he poisoned him, laid hands upon his hoards, and
recommenced the game. … Former Popes had preached crusades
against the Turk, languidly or energetically according as the
coasts of Italy were threatened. Alexander frequently invited
Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the princes who
opposed his intrigues in the favour of his children. The
fraternal feeling which subsisted between the Pope and the
Sultan was to some extent dependent on the fate of Prince
Djem, a brother of Bajazet and son of the conqueror of
Constantinople, who had fled for protection to the Christian
powers, and whom the Pope kept prisoner, receiving 40,000
ducats yearly from the Porte for his jail fee. … Lucrezia, the
only daughter of Alexander by Vannozza, took three husbands in
succession, after having been formally betrothed to two
Spanish nobles. … History has at last done justice to the
memory of this woman, whose long yellow hair was so beautiful,
and whose character was so colourless. The legend which made
her a poison-brewing Mænad, has been proved a lie—but only at
the expense of the whole society in which she lived. … It
seems now clear enough that not hers, but her father's and her
brother's, were the atrocities which made her married life in
Rome a byeword. She sat and smiled through all the tempests
which tossed her to and fro, until she found at last a fair
port in the Duchy of Ferrara. … [On the 12th of August, 1503],
the two Borgias invited the Cardinal Carneto to dine with them
in the Belvedere of Pope Innocent. Thither by the hands of
Alexander's butler they previously conveyed some poisoned
wine. By mistake they drank the death-cup mingled for their
victim. Alexander died, a black and swollen mass, hideous to
contemplate, after a sharp struggle with the poison."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 6._
The long-accepted story of Pope Alexander's poisoning, as
related above by Mr. Symonds, is now discredited. "The
principal reason why this picturesque tale has of late been
generally regarded as a fiction is the apparent impossibility
of reconciling it with a fact in connexion with Pope
Alexander's last illness which admits of no dispute, the date
of its commencement. The historians who relate the poisoning
unanimously assert that the effect was sudden and
overpowering, that the pope was carried back to the Vatican in
a dying state and expired shortly afterwards. The 18th of
August has hitherto been accepted without dispute as the date
of his death: it follows, therefore, that the fatal banquet
must have been on the 17th at the earliest.
{2443}
But a cloud of witnesses, including the despatches of
ambassadors resident at the papal court, prove that the pope's
illness commenced on the 12th, and that by the 17th his
condition was desperate. The Venetian ambassador and a
Florentine letter-writer, moreover, the only two contemporary
authorities who assign a date for the entertainment, state
that it was given on the 5th or 6th, … which would make it a
week before the pope was taken ill. … It admits … of absolute
demonstration that the banquet could not have been given on
the 12th or even on the 11th, and of proof hardly less cogent
that the pope did actually die on the 18th. All the evidence
that any entertainment was ever given, or that any poisoning
was ever attempted, connects the name of Cardinal Corneto with
the transaction. He and no other, according to all respectable
authorities (the statement of late writers that ten cardinals
were to have been poisoned at once may be dismissed without
ceremony as too ridiculous for discussion), was the cardinal
whom Alexander on this occasion designed to remove. Now,
Cardinal Corneto was not in a condition to partake of any banquet
either on 11 August or 12 August Giustiniani, the Venetian
ambassador, who attributes the pope's illness to a fever
contracted at supper at the cardinal's villa on 5 August,
says, writing on the 13th, 'All have felt the effects, and
first of all Cardinal Adrian [Corneto], who attended mass in
the papal chapel on Friday [11 August], and after supper was
attacked by a violent paroxysm of fever, which endured until
the following morning; yesterday [the 12th] he had it again,
and it has returned to-day.' Evidently, then, the cardinal
could not give or even be present at an entertainment on the
12th, and nothing could have happened on that day to throw a
doubt on the accuracy of Burcardus's statement that the pope
was taken ill in the morning, which would put any banquet and
any poisoning during the course of it out of the question. …
There is, therefore, no reason for discrediting the evidence
of the two witnesses, the only contemporary witnesses to date,
who fix the supper to 5 August or 6 August at the latest. It
is possible that poison may have been then administered which
did not produce its effects until 12 August; but the
picturesque statement of the suddenness of the pope's illness
and the consternation thus occasioned are palpable fictions,
which so gravely impair the credit of the historians relating
them that the story of the poisoning cannot be accepted on
their authority. … The story, then, that Alexander
accidentally perished by poison which he had prepared for
another—though not in itself impossible or even very
improbable—must be dismissed as at present unsupported by
direct proof or even incidental confirmation of any kind. It
does not follow that he may not have been poisoned
designedly."
_R. Garnett,
The Alleged Poisoning of Alexander VI.
(English Historical Review, April, 1894)._
"Of Pius III., who reigned for a few days after Alexander, no
account need be taken. Giuliano della Rovere was made Pope in
1503. Whatever opinion may be formed of him considered as the
high-priest of the Christian faith, there can be no doubt that
Julius II. was one of the greatest figures of the Renaissance,
and that his name, instead of that of Leo X., should by right
be given to the golden age of letters and of arts in Rome. He
stamped the century with the impress of a powerful
personality. It is to him we owe the most splendid of Michael
Angelo's and Raphael's masterpieces. The Basilica of St.
Peter's, that materialized idea, which remains to symbolize
the transition from the Church of the Middle Ages to the
modern semi-secular supremacy of Papal Rome, was his thought.
No nepotism, no loathsome sensuality, no flagrant violation of
ecclesiastical justice stain his pontificate. His one purpose
was to secure and extend the temporal authority of the Popes;
and this he achieved by curbing the ambition of the Venetians,
who threatened to enslave Romagna, by reducing Perugia and
Bologna to the Papal sway, by annexing Parma and Piacenza, and
by entering on the heritage bequeathed to him by Cesare
Borgia. At his death he transmitted to his successors the
largest and most solid sovereignty in Italy. But restless,
turbid, never happy unless fighting, Julius drowned the
peninsula in blood. He has been called a patriot, because from
time to time he raised the cry of driving the barbarians from
Italy: it must, however, be remembered that it was he, while
still Cardinal di San Pietro in Vincoli, who finally moved
Charles VIII. from Lyons; it was he who stirred up the League
of Cambray [see VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509] against Venice, and
who invited the Swiss mercenaries into Lombardy [see ITALY: A.
D. 1510-1513]; in each case adding the weight of the Papal
authority to the forces which were enslaving his country. …
Leo X. succeeded Julius in 1513, to the great relief of the
Romans, wearied with the continual warfare of the old
'Pontefice terribile.'"
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 9, chapter 5 (volume 8)._
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy,
book 5, chapters 3-17._
_W. Gilbert,
Lucrezia Borgia._
_P. Villari,
Life and Times of Machiavelli,
introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1);
book 1, chapters 6-14 (volumes 2-3)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1493.
The Pope's assumption of authority
to give the New World to Spain.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
PAPACY: A. D. 1496-1498.
The condemnation of Savonarola.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (September).
Election of Pius III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1503 (October).
Election of Julius II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1508-1509.
Pope Julius II. and the League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
PAPACY: A. D. 1510-1513.
The Holy League against France.
The pseudo-council at Pisa.
Conquests of Julius II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
PAPACY: A. D. 1513.
Election of Leo X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1515-1516.
Treaty of Leo X. with Francis I. of France.
Abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII.
The Concordat of Bologna.
Destruction of the liberties of the Gallican Church.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.
{2444}
PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517.
Monetary demands of the court and family of Pope Leo X.,
and his financial expedients.
The theory of Indulgences and their marketability.
"The position which the pope [Leo X.], now absolute lord of
Florence and master of Siena, occupied, the powerful alliances
he had contracted with the other powers of Europe, and the views
which his family entertained on the rest of Italy, rendered it
absolutely indispensable for him, spite of the prodigality of
a government that knew no restraint, to be well supplied with
money. He seized every occasion of extracting extraordinary
revenues from the church. The Lateran council was induced,
immediately before its dissolution (15th of March, 1517), to
grant the pope a tenth of all church property throughout
Christendom. Three different commissions for the sale of
indulgences traversed Germany and the northern states at the
same moment. These expedients were, it is true, resorted to
under various pretexts. The tenths were, it was said, to be
expended in a Turkish war, which was soon to be declared; the
produce of indulgences was for the building of St. Peter's
Church, where the bones of the martyrs lay exposed to the
inclemency of the elements. But people had ceased to believe
in these pretences. … For there was no doubt on the mind of
any reasonable man, that all these demands were mere financial
speculations. There is no positive proof that the assertion
then so generally made —that the proceeds of the sale of
indulgences in Germany was destined in part for the pope's
sister Maddelena—was true. But the main fact is indisputable,
that the ecclesiastical aids were applied to the uses of the
pope's family."
_L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"Indulgences, in the earlier ages of the Church, had been a
relaxation of penance, or of the discipline imposed by the
Church on penitents who had been guilty of mortal sin. The
doctrine of penance required that for such sin satisfaction
should be superadded to contrition and confession. Then came
the custom of commuting these appointed temporal penalties.
When Christianity spread among the northern nations, the
canonical penances were frequently found to be inapplicable to
their condition. The practice of accepting offerings of money
in the room of the ordinary forms of penance, harmonized with
the penal codes in vogue among the barbarian peoples. At first
the priest had only exercised the office of an intercessor.
Gradually the simple function of declaring the divine
forgiveness to the penitent transformed itself into that of a
judge. By Aquinas, the priest is made the instrument of
conveying the divine pardon, the vehicle through which the
grace of God passes to the penitent. With the jubilees, or
pilgrimages to Rome, ordained by the popes, came the plenary
indulgences, or the complete remission of all temporal
penalties—that is, the penalties still obligatory on the
penitent—on the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. These
penalties might extend into purgatory, but the indulgence
obliterated them all. In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales
and Thomas Aquinas set forth the theory of supererogatory
merits, or the treasure of merit bestowed upon the Church
through Christ and the saints, on which the rulers of the
Church might draw for the benefit of the less worthy and more
needy. This was something distinct from the power of the keys,
the power to grant absolution, which inhered in the priesthood
alone. The eternal punishment of mortal sin being remitted or
commuted by the absolution of the priest, it was open to the
Pope or his agents, by the grant of indulgences, to remit the
temporal or terminable penalties that still rested on the head
of the transgressor. Thus souls might be delivered forthwith
from purgatorial fire. Pope Sixtus IV., in 1477, had
officially declared that souls already in purgatory are
emancipated 'per modum suffragii'; that is, the work done in
behalf of them operates to effect their release in a way
analogous to the efficacy of prayer. Nevertheless, the power
that was claimed over the dead, was not practically diminished
by this restriction. The business of selling indulgences had
grown by the profitableness of it. 'Everywhere,' says Erasmus,
'the remission of purgatorial torment is sold; nor is it sold
only, but forced upon those who refuse it.' As managed by
Tetzel and the other emissaries sent out to collect money for
the building of St. Peter's Church, the indulgence was a
simple bargain, according to which, on the payment of a
stipulated sum, the individual received a full discharge from
the penalties of sin or procured the release of a soul from
the flames of purgatory. The forgiveness of sins was offered
in the market for money."
_G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 4._
The doctrine concerning indulgences which the Roman Catholic
Church maintains at the present day is stated by one of its
most eminent prelates as follows: "What then is an Indulgence?
It is no more than a remission by the Church, in virtue of the
keys, or the judicial authority committed to her, of a
portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.
The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence this
remission is derived: but besides, the Church holds that, by
the communion of Saints, penitential works performed by the
just, beyond what their own sins might exact, are available to
other members of Christ's mystical body; that, for instance,
the sufferings of the spotless Mother of God, afflictions such
as probably no other human being ever felt in the soul, —the
austerities and persecutions of the Baptist, the friend of the
Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's womb, and
chosen to be an angel before the face of the Christ,—the
tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had been
pure from vice and sin,—the prolonged rigours of holy
anchorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of
the world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
merits of Christ's passion,—were not thrown away, but formed a
store of meritorious blessings, applicable to the satisfaction
of other sinners. It is evident that, if the temporal
punishment reserved to sin was anciently believed to be
remitted through the penitential acts, which the sinner
assumed, any other substitute for them, that the authority
imposing or recommending them received as an equivalent, must
have been considered by it truly of equal value, and as
acceptable before God. And so it must be now. If the duty of
exacting such satisfaction devolves upon the Church,—and it
must be the same now as it formerly was,—she necessarily
possesses at present the same power of substitution, with the
same efficacy, and, consequently, with the same effects. And
such a substitution is what constitutes all that Catholics
understand by the name of an Indulgence. … Do I then mean to
say, that during the middle ages, and later, no abuse took
place in the practise of indulgences? Most certainly not.
{2445}
Flagrant and too frequent abuses, doubtless, occurred through
the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men; especially when
indulgence was granted to the contributors towards charitable
or religious foundations, in the erection of which private
motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the Church felt
and ever tried to remedy the evil. … The Council of Trent, by
an ample decree, completely reformed the abuses which had
subsequently crept in, and had been unfortunately used as a
ground for Luther's separation from the Church."
_N. Wiseman,
Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and
Practices of the Catholic Church,
lecture 12._
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
Tetzel and the hawking of Indulgences through Germany.
"In Germany the people were full of excitement. The Church had
opened a vast market on earth. The crowd of customers, and the
cries and jests of the sellers, were like a fair—and that, a
fair held by monks. The article which they puffed off and
offered at the lowest price, was, they said, the salvation of
souls. These dealers travelled through the country in a
handsome carriage, with three outriders, made a great show,
and spent a great deal of money. … When the cavalcade was
approaching a town, a deputy was dispatched to the magistrate:
'The grace of God and St. Peter is before your gates,' said
the envoy; and immediately all the place was in commotion. The
clergy, the priests, the nuns, the council, the schoolmasters,
the schoolboys, the trade corporations with their banners, men
and women, young and old, went to meet the merchants, bearing
lighted torches in their hands, advancing to the sound of
music and of all the bells, 'so that,' says a historian, 'they
could not have received God Himself in greater state.' The
salutations ended, the whole cortege moved towards the church,
the Pope's bull of grace being carried in advance on a velvet
cushion, or on a cloth of gold. The chief indulgence-merchant
followed next, holding in his hand a red wooden cross. In this
order the whole procession moved along, with singing, prayers,
and incense. The organ pealed, and loud music greeted the
hawker monk and those who accompanied him, as they entered the
temple. The cross he bore was placed in front of the altar;
the Pope's arms were suspended from it. … One person
especially attracted attention at these sales. It was he who
carried the great red cross and played the principal part. He
wore the garb of the Dominicans. He had an arrogant bearing
and a thundering voice, and he was in full vigour, though he
had reached his sixty-third year. This man, the son of a
goldsmith of Leipsic, named Dietz, was called John Dietzel, or
Tetzel. He had received numerous ecclesiastical honours. He
was Bachelor in Theology, prior of the Dominicans, apostolic
commissioner and inquisitor, and since the year 1502 he had
filled the office of vendor of indulgences. The skill he had
acquired soon caused him to be named commissioner-in-chief. …
The cross having been elevated and the Pope's arms hung upon
it, Tetzel ascended the pulpit, and with a confident air began
to extol the worth of indulgences, in presence of the crowd
whom the ceremony had attracted to the sacred spot. The people
listened with open mouths. Here is a specimen of one of his
harangues:—'Indulgences,' he said, 'are the most precious and
sublime gifts of God. This cross (pointing to the red cross)
has as much efficacy as the cross of Jesus Christ itself.
Come, and I will give you letters furnished with seals, by
which, even the sins that you may have a wish to commit
hereafter, shall be all forgiven you. I would not exchange my
privileges for those of St. Peter in heaven; for I have saved
more souls by my indulgences than the Apostle by his
discourses. There is no sin so great, that an indulgence
cannot remit it. Repentance is not necessary. But, more than
that; indulgences not only save the living, they save the dead
also. Priest! noble! merchant! woman! young girl! young
man!—harken to your parents and your friends who are dead, and
who cry to you from the depths of the abyss: "We are enduring
horrible tortures! A small alms would deliver us. You can give
it, and you will not!"' The hearers shuddered at these words,
pronounced in the formidable voice of the charlatan monk. 'The
very instant,' continued Tetzel, 'the piece of money chinks at
the bottom of the strong box, the soul is freed from
purgatory, and flies to heaven.' … Such were the discourses
heard by astonished Germany in the days when God was raising
up Luther. The sermon ended, the indulgence was considered as
'having solemnly established its throne' in that place.
Confessionals were arranged, adorned with the Pope's arms; and
the people flocked in crowds to the confessors. They were
told, that, in order to obtain the full pardon of all their
sins, and to deliver the souls of others from purgatory, it
was not necessary for them to have contrition of heart, or to
make confession by mouth; only, let them be quick and bring
money to the box. Women and children, poor people, and those
who lived on alms, all of them soon found the needful to
satisfy the confessor's demands. The confession being over—and
it did not require much time—the faithful hurried to the sale,
which was conducted by a single monk. His counter stood near
the cross. He fixed his sharp eyes upon all who approached
him, scrutinized their manners, their bearing, their dress,
and demanded a sum proportioned to the appearance of each.
Kings, queens, princes, archbishops, bishops, had to pay,
according to regulation, twenty-five ducats; abbots, counts,
and barons, ten; and so on, or according to the discretion of
the commissioner. For particular sins, too, both Tetzel in
Germany, and Samson in Switzerland, had a special scale of
prices."
_J. N. Merle D'Aubigne,
The Story of the! Reformation,
part 1, chapter 6
(or History of the Reformation, book 3, chapter 1)._
ALSO IN:
_M. J. Spalding,
History of the Protestant Reformation,
part 2, chapter 3._
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
Luther's attack upon the Indulgences.
His 95 Theses nailed to the Wittenberg Church.
The silent support of Elector Frederick of Saxony.
The satisfaction of awakened Germany.
"Wittenberg was an old-fashioned town in Saxony, on the Elbe.
Its main street was parallel with the broad river, and within
its walls, at one end of it, near the Elster gate, lay the
University, founded by the good Elector—Frederic of Saxony—of
which Luther was a professor; while at the other end of it was
the palace of the Elector and the palace church of All Saints.
The great parish church lifted its two towers from the centre
of the town, a little back from the main street.
{2446}
This was the town in which Luther had been preaching for
years, and towards which Tetzel, the seller of indulgences,
now came, just as he did to other towns, vending his 'false
pardons'—granting indulgences for sins to those who could pay
for them, and offering to release from purgatory the souls of
the dead, if any of their friends would pay for their release.
As soon as the money chinked in his money-box, the souls of
their dead friends would be let out of purgatory. This was the
gospel of Tetzel. It made Luther's blood boil. He knew that
what the Pope wanted was people's money, and that the whole
thing was a cheat. This his Augustinian theology had taught
him, and he was not a man to hold back when he saw what ought
to be done. He did see it. On the day [October 31] before the
festival of All Saints, on which the relics of the Church were
displayed to the crowds of country people who flocked into the
town, Luther passed down the long street with a copy of
ninety-five theses or Statements [see text below] against
indulgences in his hand, and nailed them upon the door of the
palace church ready for the festival on the morrow. Also on
All Saints' day he read them to the people in the great parish
church. It would not have mattered much to Tetzel or the Pope
that the monk of Wittenberg had nailed up his papers on the
palace church, had it not been that he was backed by the
Elector of Saxony."
_F. Seebohm,
The Era of the Protestant Revolution,
part 2, chapter 3 (c)._
"As the abuse complained of had a double character, religious
and political, or financial, so also political events came in
aid of the opposition emanating from religious ideas.
Frederick of Saxony [on the occasion of an indulgence
proclaimed in 1501] … had kept the money accruing from it in
his own dominions in his possession, with the determination
not to part with it, till an expedition against the infidels,
which was then contemplated, should be actually undertaken;
the pope and, on the pope's concession, the emperor, had
demanded it of him in vain: he held it for what it really
was—a tax levied on his subjects; and after all the projects
of a war against the Turks had come to nothing, he had at
length applied the money to his university. Nor was he now
inclined to consent to a similar scheme of taxation. … The
sale of indulgences at Jüterbock and the resort of his
subjects thither, was not less offensive to him on financial
grounds than to Luther on spiritual. Not that the latter were
in any degree excited by the former; this it would be
impossible to maintain after a careful examination of the
facts; on the contrary, the spiritual motives were more
original, powerful, and independent than the temporal, though
these were important, as having their proper source in the
general condition of Germany. The point whence the great
events arose which were soon to agitate the world, was the
coincidence of the two. There was … no one who represented the
interests of Germany in the matter. There were innumerable
persons who saw through the abuse of religion, but no one who
dared to call it by its right name and openly to denounce and
resist it. But the alliance between the monk of Wittenberg and
the sovereign of Saxony was formed; no treaty was negotiated;
they had never seen each other; yet they were bound together
by an instinctive mutual understanding. The intrepid monk
attacked the enemy; the prince did not promise him his aid—he
did not even encourage him; he let things take their course. …
Luther's daring assault was the shock which awakened Germany
from her slumber. That a man should arise who had the courage
to undertake the perilous struggle, was a source of universal
satisfaction, and as it were tranquillised the public
conscience. The most powerful interests were involved in
it;—that of sincere and profound piety, against the most
purely external means of obtaining pardon of sins; that of
literature, against fanatical persecutors, of whom Tetzel was
one; the renovated theology against the dogmatic learning of
the schools, which lent itself to all these abuses; the
temporal power against the spiritual, whose usurpations it
sought to curb; lastly, the nation against the rapacity of
Rome."
_L. Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther,
part 3, chapter 1._
_C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
chapter 5._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523.
PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
The Ninety-five Theses of Luther.
The following is a translation of the ninety-five theses:
"In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth,
a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin
Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and
of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that
place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in
their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: 'Repent ye,'
etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be
penitence.
2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that
is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed
under the ministry of priests.
3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay
such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces
various mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty thus continues as long as the hatred of
self—that is, true inward penitence—continues; namely, till
our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any
penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own
authority, or by that of the canons.
6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by
declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or
at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which
eases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly
remain.
7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
representative the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and
no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.
9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us,
in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the
article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the
case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for
purgatory.
11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into
the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while
the bishops were asleep.
12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after,
but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
{2447}
13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead
to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.
14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person
necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the
greater the fear it brings.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say
nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory,
since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair,
almost despair, and peace of mind differ.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be
that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.
18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any
scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of
the increase of charity.
19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and
confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them,
though we may be very sure of it.
20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary
remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but
only of those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say
that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and
saved from all punishment.
22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
which they would have had to pay in this life according to the
canons.
23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to
anyone, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most
perfect, that is, to very few.
24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be
deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of
release from penalties.
25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such
has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his
own parish, in particular.
26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls,
not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this
case) but by the way of suffrage.
27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of
purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.
28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest,
avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the
Church depends on the will of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be
redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints
Severinus and Paschal.
30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much
less of the attainment of plenary remission.
31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
indulgences—that is to say, most rare.
32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they
are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned
along with their teachers.
33. We must especially beware of those who say that these
pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by
which man is reconciled to God.
34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only
to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of
human appointment.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that
contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of
purgatory or buy confessional licences.
36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right
plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of
pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share
in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by
God, even without letters of pardon.
38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no
means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a
declaration of the Divine remission.
39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the
people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true
contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the
ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or
at least gives occasion for them to do so.
41. Apostolic pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution,
lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed
before other good works of charity.
42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the
Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared
to works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor
man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought
pardons.
44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the
man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not
become better, but only freer from punishment.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees anyone in
need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not
purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the
anger of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have
superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary
for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish
it on pardons.
47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to
buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting
pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer
should be made for him, than that money should be readily
paid.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are
useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most
hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were
acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to
ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh,
and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty,
so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if
necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own
money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons
extract money.
52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon,
even if a commissary—nay the Pope himself—were to pledge his
own soul for them.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order
that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter
silence in other churches.
54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon,
an equal or longer time is spent on pardons that [than] on it.
55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons,
which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single
bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel,
which is a very great matter, should be preached with a
hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants
indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among
the people of Christ.
{2448}
57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures,
for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated,
by many of the preachers.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for
these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to
the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer
man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the
poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the
word in his time.
60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of
the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that
treasure.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone
sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved
cases.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the
glory and grace of God.
63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful,
because it makes the first to be last.
64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most
acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.
65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of
old they fished for the men of riches.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now
fish for the riches of men.
67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to
be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards
the promotion of gain.
68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the
grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries
of apostolic pardons with all reverence.
70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their
eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not
preach their own dreams in place of the Pope's commission.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
him be anathema and accursed.
72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons,
let him be blessed.
73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind
of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those
who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the
injury of holy charity and of truth.
75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they
could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had
violated the Mother of God, is madness.
76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal] pardons cannot take
away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.
77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could
grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and
the Pope.
78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope
has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts
of healing, etc. (1 Corinthians xii. 9).
79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the
Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is
blasphemy.
80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such
discourses to have currency among the people, will have to
render an account.
81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy
thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to
the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen
questionings of the laity.
82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for
the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of
souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems
an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal
thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a
very slight reason?
83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for
the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or
permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this
purpose, since it is a wrong to pay for those who are already
redeemed?
84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in
that for money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy
of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not
redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity,
on account of its own need?
85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since
abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by
usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting
of indulgences, as if they were full of life?
86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day
more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build
the one basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than
with that of poor believers?
87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who,
through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission
and participation?
88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the
Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these
remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one
of the faithful?
89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money,
that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the
letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally
efficacious.
90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by
force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to
expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their
enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.
91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and
mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with
ease; nay, would not exist.
92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ: 'Peace, peace,' and there is no peace.
93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of
Christ: 'The cross, the cross,' and there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ
their head through pains, deaths, and hells.
95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations,
rather than in the security of peace."
_H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim,
First Principles of the Reformation,
page 6-13._
PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.
Favoring circumstances under which the Reformation in Germany
gained ground.
The Bull "Exurge Domine."
Excommunication of Luther.
The imperial summons from Worms.
"It was fortunate for Luther's cause that he lived under a
prince like the Elector of Saxony. Frederick, indeed, was a
devout catholic; he had made a pilgrimage to Palestine, and
had filled All Saints' Church at Wittenberg with relics for
which he had given large sums of money. His attention,
however, was now entirely engrossed by his new university, and
he was unwilling to offer up to men like Tetzel so great an
ornament of it as Dr. Martin Luther, since whose appointment
at Wittenberg the number of students had so wonderfully
increased as to throw the universities of Erfurt and Leipsic
quite into the shade. …
{2449}
As one of the principal Electors he was completely master in
his own dominions, and indeed throughout Germany he was as
much respected as the Emperor; and Maximilian, besides his
limited power, was deterred by his political views from taking
any notice of the quarrel. Luther had thus full liberty to
prepare the great movement that was to ensue. … The contempt
entertained by Pope Leo X. for the whole affair was also
favourable to Luther; for Frederick might not at first have
been inclined to defend him against the Court of Rome. … The
Court of Rome at length became more sensible of the importance
of Luther's innovations and in August 1518, he was commanded
either to recant, or to appear and answer for his opinions at
Rome, where Silvester Prierias and the bishop Ghenucci di
Arcoli had been appointed his judges. Luther had not as yet
dreamt of throwing off his allegiance to the Roman See. In the
preceding May he had addressed a letter to the Pope himself,
stating his views in a firm but modest and respectful tone,
and declaring that he could not retract them. The Elector
Frederick, at the instance of the university of Wittenberg,
which trembled for the life of its bold and distinguished
professor, prohibited Luther's journey to Rome, and expressed
his opinion that the question should be decided in Germany by
impartial judges. Leo consented to send a legate to Augsburg
to determine the cause, and selected for that purpose Cardinal
Thomas di Vio, better known by the name of Cajetanus, derived
from his native city of Gaeta. … Luther set out for Augsburg
on foot provided with several letters of recommendation from
the Elector, and a safe conduct from the Emperor Maximilian. …
Luther appeared before the cardinal for the first time,
October 12th, at whose feet he fell; but it was soon apparent
that no agreement could be expected. … Cajetanus, who had at
first behaved with great moderation and politeness, grew warm,
demanded an unconditional retraction, forbade Luther again to
appear before him till he was prepared to make it, and
threatened him with the censures of the Church. The fate of
Huss stared Luther in the face, and he determined to fly. His
patron Staupitz procured him a horse, and on the 20th of
October, Langemantel, a magistrate of Augsburg, caused a
postern in the walls to be opened for him before day had well
dawned. … Cajetanus now wrote to the Elector Frederick
complaining of Luther's refractory departure from Augsburg,
and requiring either that he should be sent to Rome or at
least be banished from Saxony. … So uncertain were Luther's
prospects that he made preparations for his departure. … At
length, just on the eve of his departure, he received an
intimation from Frederick that he might remain at Wittenberg.
Before the close of the year he gained a fresh accession of
strength by the arrival of Melanchthon, a pupil of Reuchlin,
who had obtained the appointment of Professor of Greek in the
university. Frederick offered a fresh disputation at
Wittenberg; but Leo X. adopted a course more consonant with
the pretensions of an infallible Church by issuing a Bull
dated November 9th 1518, which, without adverting to Luther or
his opinions, explained and enforced the received doctrine of
indulgences. It failed, however, to produce the desired
effect. … Leo now tried the effects of seduction. Carl Von
Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman, canon of Mentz, Treves, and
Meissen, … was despatched to the Elector Frederick with the
present of a golden rose, and with instructions to put an end,
as best he might, to the Lutheran schism. On his way through
Germany, Miltitz soon perceived that three fourths of the
people were in Luther's favour; nor was his reception at the
Saxon Court of a nature to afford much encouragement. …
Miltitz saw the necessity for conciliation. Having obtained an
interview with Luther at Altenburg, Miltitz persuaded him to
promise that he would be silent, provided a like restraint
were placed upon his adversaries. … Luther was even induced to
address a letter to the Pope, dated from Altenburg, March 3rd
1510, in which, in humble terms, he expressed his regret that
his motives should have been misinterpreted, and solemnly
declared that he did not mean to dispute the power and
authority of the Pope and the Church of Rome, which he
considered superior to everything except Jesus Christ alone. …
The truce effected by Miltitz lasted only a few months. It was
broken by a disputation to which Dr. Eck challenged
Bodenstein, a Leipsic professor, better known by the name of
Carlstadt. … The Leipsic disputation was preceded and followed
by a host of controversies. The whole mind of Germany was in
motion, and it was no longer with Luther alone that Rome had
to contend. All the celebrated names in art and literature
sided with the Reformation; Erasmus, Ulrich von Hutten,
Melanchthon, Lucas Cranach, Albert Durer, and others. Hans
Sachs, the Meistersänger of Nuremberg, composed in his honour
the pretty song called 'the Wittenberg Nightingale.' Silvester
von Schaumburg and Franz von Sickingen invited Luther to their
castles, in case he were driven from Saxony; and Schaumburg
declared that 100 more Franconian knights were ready to
protect him. … The Elector Frederick became daily more
convinced that his doctrines were founded in Scripture. …
Meanwhile, Luther had made great strides in his opinions since
the publication of his Theses. … He had begun to impugn many
of the principles of the Romish church; and so far from any
longer recognising the paramount authority of the Pope, or
even of a general council, he was now disposed to submit to no
rule but the Bible. The more timid spirits were alarmed at his
boldness, and even Frederick himself exhorted him to
moderation. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that Luther
sometimes damaged his cause by the intemperance of his
language; an instance of which is afforded by the remarkable
letter he addressed to Leo X., April 6th 1520, as a dedication
to his treatise 'De Libertate Christiana.' … The letter just
alluded to was, perhaps, the immediate cause of the famous
Bull, 'Exurge Domine,' which Leo fulminated against Luther,
June 15th 1520. The Bull, which is conceived in mild terms,
condemned forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's
works, allowed him sixty days to recant, invited him to Rome,
if he pleased to come, under a safe conduct, and required him
to cease from preaching and writing, and to burn his published
treatises. If he did not conform within the above period, he
was condemned as a notorious and irreclaimable heretic; all
princes and magistrates were required to seize him and his
adherents, and to send them to Rome; and all places that gave
them shelter were threatened with an interdict.
{2450}
The Bull was forwarded to Archbishop Albert of Mentz; but in
North Germany great difficulty was found in publishing it. …
On December 10th Luther consummated his rebellion by taking
that final step which rendered it impossible for him to
recede. On the banks of the Elbe before the Elster Gate of
Wittenberg, … Luther, in the presence of a large body of
professors and students, solemnly committed with his own hands
to the flames the Bull by which he had been condemned,
together with the code of the canon law, and the writings of
Eck and Emser, his opponents. … On January 3rd 1521, Luther
and his followers were solemnly excommunicated by Leo with
bell, book, and candle, and an image of him, together with his
writings, was committed to the flames. … At the Diet of Worms
which was held soon after, the Emperor [Charles V., who
succeeded Maximilian in 1519] having ordered that Luther's
books should be delivered up to the magistrates to be burnt,
the States represented to him the uselessness and impolicy of
such a step, pointing out that the doctrines of Luther had
already sunk deep into the hearts of the people; and they
recommended that he should be summoned to Worms and
interrogated whether he would recant without any disputation.
… In compliance with the advice of the States, the Emperor
issued a mandate, dated March 6th 1521, summoning Luther to
appear at Worms within twenty-one days. It was accompanied
with a safe conduct."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 2 (volume 1)._
_P. Bayne,
Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
book 5, chapter 3;
book 8, chapter 6 (volumes 1-2)._
_J. E. Darras,
History of the Church,
7th period, chapter 1 (volume 4)._
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 6, chapter 4._
PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
The sale of Indulgences in Switzerland.
Beginning of the Reformation under Zwingli.
Near the close of the year 1518, Ulric Zwingle, or Zwingli, or
Zuinglius, already much respected for his zealous piety and
his learning, "was appointed preacher in the collegiate church
at Zurich. The crisis of his appearance on this scene was so
extraordinary as to indicate to every devout mind a
providential dispensation, designed to raise up a second
instrument in the work of reformation, and that, almost by the
same means which had been employed to produce the first. One
Bernhard Samson, or Sanson, a native of Milan, and a
Franciscan monk, selected this moment to open a sale of
indulgences at Zurich. He was the Tetzel of Switzerland. He
preached through many of its provinces, exercising the same
trade, with the same blasphemous pretensions and the same
clamorous effrontery; and in a land of greater political
freedom his impostures excited even a deeper and more general
disgust. … He encountered no opposition till he arrived at
Zurich. But here appears a circumstance which throws a shade
of distinction between the almost parallel histories of Samson
and Tetzel. The latter observed in his ministration all the
necessary ecclesiastical forms; the former omitted to present
his credentials to the bishop of the diocese, and acted solely
on the authority of the pontifical bulls: Hugo, Bishop of
Constance, was offended at this disrespectful temerity, and
immediately directed Zwingle and the other pastors to exclude
the stranger from their churches. The first who had occasion
to show obedience to this mandate was John Frey, minister of
Staufberg. Bullinger, Dean of Bremgarten, was the second. From
Bremgarten, after a severe altercation which ended by the
excommunication of that dignitary, Samson proceeded to Zurich.
Meanwhile Zwingle had been engaged for about two months in
rousing the indignation of the people against the same object;
and so successfully did he support the instruction of the
Bishop, and such efficacy was added to his eloquence by the
personal unpopularity of Samson, that the senate determined
not so much as to admit him within the gates of the city. A
deputation of honour was appointed to welcome the pontifical
legate without the walls. He was then commanded to absolve the
Dean from the sentence launched against him, and to depart
from the canton. He obeyed, and presently turned his steps
towards Italy and repassed the mountains. This took place at
the end of February, 1519. The Zurichers immediately addressed
a strong remonstrance to the Pope, in which they denounced the
misconduct of his agent. Leo replied, on the last of April,
with characteristic mildness; for though he maintained, as
might be expected, the Pope's authority to grant those
indulgences, … yet he accorded the prayer of the petition so
far as to recall the preacher, and to promise his punishment,
should he be convicted of having exceeded his commission. …
But Zwingle's views were not such as long to be approved by an
episcopal reformer in that [the Roman] church. … He began to
invite the Bishop, both by public and private solicitations,
with perfect respect but great earnestness, to give his
adhesion to the evangelical truth … and to permit the free
preaching of the gospel throughout his diocese. … From the
beginning of his preaching at Zurich it was his twofold object
to instruct the people in the meaning, design, and character
of the scriptural writings; and at the same time to teach them
to seek their religion only there. His very first proceeding
was to substitute the gospel of St. Matthew, as the text-book
of his discourses, for the scraps of Scripture exclusively
treated by the papal preachers; and he pursued this purpose by
next illustrating the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles
of Paul and Peter. He considered the doctrine of justification
by faith as the corner-stone of Christianity, and he strove to
draw away his hearers from the gross observances of a
pharasaical church to a more spiritual conception of the
covenant of their redemption. … His success was so
considerable, that at the end of 1519 he numbered as many as
2,000 disciples; and his influence so powerful among the
chiefs of the commonwealth, that he procured, in the following
year, an official decree to the effect: That all pastors and
ministers should thenceforward reject the unfaithful devices
and ordinances of men, and teach with freedom such doctrines
only as rested on the authority of the prophecies, gospels,
and apostolical epistles."
_G. Waddington,
History of the Reformation,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._
{2451}
"With unflagging zeal and courage Zwingli followed his ideal
in politics, viz., to rear a republic on the type of the Greek
free states of old, with perfect national independence. Thanks
to his influence Zurich in 1521 abolished 'Reislaufen,' and
the system of foreign pay [mercenary military service]. This
step, however, brought down on the head of Zurich the wrath of
the twelve sister republics, which had just signed a military
contract with Francis I. … It was only in 1522 that he began
to launch pamphlets against the abuses in the Church-fasting,
celibacy of the clergy and the like. On the 29th of January,
1523, Zwingli obtained from the Council of Zurich the opening
of a public religious discussion in presence of the whole of
the clergy of the canton, and representatives of the Bishop of
Constance, whose assistance in the debate the Council had
invited. In 67 theses, remarkable for their penetration and
clearness, he sketched out his confession of faith and plan of
reform. … On the 25th of October, 1523, a second discussion
initiated the practical consequences of the reformed
doctrine—the abrogation of the mass and image worship.
Zwingli's system was virtually that of Calvin, but was
conceived in a broader spirit, and carried out later on in a
far milder manner by Bullinger. … The Council gave the fullest
approval to the Reformation. In 1524 Zwingli married Anne
Reinhard, the widow of a Zurich nobleman (Meyer von Knonau),
and so discarded the practice of celibacy obtaining amongst
priests. … In 1524 Zwingli began to effect the most sweeping
changes with the view of overthrowing the whole fabric of
mediæval superstition. In the direction of reform he went far
beyond Luther, who had retained oral confession, altar
pictures, &c. The introduction of his reforms in Zurich called
forth but little opposition. True, there were the risings of
the Anabaptists, but these were the same everywhere. …
Pictures and images were removed from the churches, under
government direction. … At the Landgemeinden [parish
gatherings] called for the purpose, the people gave an
enthusiastic assent to his doctrines, and declared themselves
ready 'to die for the gospel truth.' Thus a national Church
was established, severed from the diocese of Constance, and
placed under the control of the Council of Zurich and a
clerical synod. The convents were turned into schools,
hospitals, and poorhouses."
_Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland,
chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_H. Stebbing,
History of the Reformation,
chapter 7 (volume l)._
_C. Beard,
The Reformation
(Hibbert Lectures, 1883).
lecture 7._
_J. H. Merle D'Aubigné.
History of the Reformation,
books 8 and 11 (volumes 2-3)._
_M. J. Spalding.
History of the Protestant Reformation,
part 2, chapter 5._
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 7, chapters 1-3._
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
Luther before the Diet at Worms.
His friendly abduction and concealment at Wartburg.
His translation of the Bible.
"On the 2nd of April [1521], the Tuesday after Easter, Luther
set out on his momentous journey. He travelled in a cart with
three of his friends, the herald riding in front in his coat
of arms. … The Emperor had not waited for his appearance to
order his books to be burnt. When he reached Erfurt on the way
the sentence had just been proclaimed. The herald asked him if
he still meant to go on. 'I will go,' he said, 'if there are
as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the
house-tops. Though they burnt Huss, they could not burn the
truth.' The Erfurt students, in retaliation, had thrown the
Bull into the water. The Rector and the heads of the
university gave Luther a formal reception as an old and
honoured member; he preached at his old convent, and he
preached again at Gotha and at Eisenach. Caietan had
protested against the appearance in the Diet of an
excommunicated heretic. The Pope himself had desired that the
safe–conduct should not be respected, and the bishops had said
that it was unnecessary. Manœvres were used to delay him on
the road till the time allowed had expired. But there was a
fierce sense of fairness in the lay members of the Diet, which
it was dangerous to outrage. Franz von Sickingen hinted that
if there was foul play it might go hard with Cardinal
Caietan—and Von Sickingen was a man of his word in such
matters. On the 16th of April, at ten in the morning, the cart
entered Worms, bringing Luther in his monk's dress, followed
and attended by a crowd of cavaliers. The town's people were
all out to see the person with whose name Germany was ringing.
As the cart passed through the gales the warder on the walls
blew a blast upon his trumpet. … Luther needed God to stand by
him, for in all that great gathering he could count on few
assured friends. The princes of the empire were resolved that
he should have fair play, but they were little inclined to
favour further a disturber of the public peace. The Diet sate
in the Bishop's palace, and the next evening Luther appeared.
The presence in which he found himself would have tried the
nerves of the bravest of men: the Emperor, sternly hostile,
with his retinue of Spanish priests and nobles; the
archbishops and bishops, all of opinion that the stake was the
only fitting place for so insolent a heretic; the dukes and
barons, whose stern eyes were little likely to reveal their
sympathy, if sympathy any of them felt. One of them only,
George of Frundsberg, had touched Luther on the shoulder as he
passed through the ante–room. 'Little monk, little monk,' he
said, 'thou hast work before thee, that I, and many a man
whose trade is war, never faced the like of. If thy heart is
right, and thy cause good, go on in God's name. He will not
forsake thee. A pile of books stood on a table when he was
brought forward. An officer of the court read the titles,
asked if he acknowledged them, and whether he was ready to
retract them. Luther was nervous, not without cause. He
answered in a low voice that the books were his. To the other
question he could not reply at once. He demanded time. His
first appearance had not left a favourable impression; he was
allowed a night to consider. The next morning, April 18, he
had recovered himself; he came in fresh, courageous, and
collected. His old enemy, Eck, was this time the spokesman
against him, and asked what he was prepared to do. He said
firmly that his writings were of three kinds: some on simple
Gospel truth, which all admitted, and which of course he could
not retract; some against Papal laws and customs, which had
tried the consciences of Christians and had been used as
excuses to oppress and spoil the German people. If he
retracted these he would cover himself with shame. In a third
sort he had attacked particular persons, and perhaps had been
too violent. Even here he declined to retract simply, but
would admit his fault if fault could be proved. He gave his
answers in a clear strong voice, in Latin first, and then in
German.
{2452}
There was a pause, and then Eck said that he had spoken
disrespectfully; his heresies had been already condemned at
the Council at Constance; let him retract on these special
points, and he should have consideration for the rest. He
required a plain Yes or No from him, 'without horns.' The
taunt roused Luther's blood. His full brave self was in his
reply. 'I will give you an answer,' he said, 'which has
neither horns nor teeth. Popes have erred and councils have
erred. Prove to me out of Scripture that I am wrong, and I
submit. Till then my conscience binds me. Here I stand. I can
do no more. God help me. Amen.' All day long the storm raged.
Night had fallen, and torches were lighted in the hall before
the sitting closed. Luther was dismissed at last; it was
supposed, and perhaps intended, that he was to be taken to a
dungeon. But the hearts of the lay members of the Diet had
been touched by the courage which he had shown. They would not
permit a hand to be laid on him. … When he had reached his
lodging again, he flung up his hands. 'I am through!' he
cried. 'I am through! If I had a thousand heads they should be
struck off one by one before I would retract.' The same
evening the Elector Frederick sent for him, and told him he
had done well and bravely. But though he had escaped so far,
he was not acquitted. Charles conceived that he could be now
dealt with as an obstinate heretic. At the next session (the
day following), he informed the Diet that he would send Luther
home to Wittenberg, there to be punished as the Church
required. The utmost that his friends could obtain was that
further efforts should be made. The Archbishop of Treves was
allowed to tell him that if he would acknowledge the
infallibility of councils, he might be permitted to doubt the
infallibility of the Pope. But Luther stood simply upon
Scripture. There, and there only, was infallibility. The
Elector ordered him home at once, till the Diet should decide
upon his fate. … A majority in the Diet, it was now clear,
would pronounce for his death. If he was sentenced by the
Great Council of the Empire, the Elector would be no longer
able openly to protect him. It was decided that he should
disappear, and disappear so completely that no trace of him
should be discernible. On his way back through the Thuringian
Forest, three or four miles from Altenstein, a party of armed
men started out of the wood, set upon his carriage, seized and
carried him off to Wartburg Castle. There he remained, passing
by the name of the Ritter George, and supposed to be some
captive knight. The secret was so well kept, that even the
Elector's brother was ignorant of his hiding place. Luther was
as completely lost as if the earth had swallowed him. … On the
8th of May the Edict of Worms was issued, placing him under
the ban of the empire; but he had become 'as the air
invulnerable,' and the face of the world had changed before he
came back to it: … Luther's abduction and residence at
Wartburg is the most picturesque incident in his life. He
dropped his monk's gown, and was dressed like a gentleman; he
let his beard grow and wore a sword. … The revolution,
deprived of its leader, ran wild meanwhile. An account of the
scene at Worms, with Luther's speeches, and wood cut
illustrations, was printed on broadsheets and circulated in
hundreds of thousands of copies. The people were like
schoolboys left without a master. Convents and monasteries
dissolved by themselves; monks and nuns began to marry; there
was nothing else for the nuns to do, turned as they were
adrift without provision. The Mass in most of the churches in
Saxony was changed into a Communion. But without Luther it was
all chaos, and no order could be taken. So great was the need
of him, that in December he went to Wittenberg in disguise;
but it was not yet safe for him to remain there. He had to
retreat to his castle again, and in that compelled retreat he
bestowed on Germany the greatest of all the gifts which he was
able to offer. He began to translate the Bible into clear
vernacular German. … He had probably commenced the work at the
beginning of his stay at the castle. In the spring of 1522 the
New Testament was completed. In the middle of March, the
Emperor's hands now being fully occupied, the Elector sent him
word that he need not conceal himself any longer; and he
returned finally to his home and his friends. The New
Testament was printed in November of that year, and became at
once a household book in Germany. … The Old Testament was
taken in hand at once, and in two years half of it was roughly
finished."
_J. A. Froude,
Luther: a Short Biography,
pages 28-35._
ALSO IN:
_G. Waddington,
History of the Reformation,
chapters 13-14 (volume 1)._
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 2 (volume 1)._
_C. Beard,
Martin Luther and the Reformation,
chapter 9._
_J. Köstlin,
Life of Luther,
part 3, chapter 9._
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535.
Beginning of the Protestant Reform movement in France.
Hesitation of Francis I.
His final persecution of the Reformers.
"The long contest for Gallican rights had lowered the prestige
of the popes in France, but it had not weakened the Catholic
Church, which was older than the monarchy itself, and, in the
feeling of the people, was indissolubly associated with it.
The College of the Sorbonne, or the Theological Faculty at
Paris, and the Parliament, which had together maintained
Gallican liberty, were united in stern hostility to all
doctrinal innovations. … In Southern France a remnant of the
Waldenses had survived, and the recollection of the
Catharists was still preserved in popular songs and legends.
But the first movements towards reform emanated from the
Humanist culture. A literary and scientific spirit was
awakened in France through the lively intercourse with Italy
which subsisted under Louis XII. and Francis I. By Francis
especially, Italian scholars and artists were induced in large
numbers to take up their abode in France. Frenchmen likewise
visited Italy and brought home the classical culture which
they acquired there. Among the scholars who cultivated Greek
was Budæus, the foremost of them, whom Erasmus styled the
'wonder of France.' After the 'Peace of the Dames' was
concluded at Cambray, in 1529, when Francis surrendered Italy
to Charles V., a throng of patriotic Italians who feared or
hated the Spanish rule, streamed over the Alps and gave a new
impulse to literature and art. Poets, artists, and scholars
found in the king a liberal and enthusiastic patron. The new
studies, especially Hebrew and Greek, were opposed by all the
might of the Sorbonne, the leader of which was the Syndic,
Beda. He and his associates were on the watch for heresy, and
every author who was suspected of overstepping the bounds of
orthodoxy was immediately accused and subjected to
persecution.
{2453}
Thus two parties were formed, the one favorable to the new
learning, and the other inimical to it and rigidly wedded to
the traditional theology. The Father of the French
Reformation, or the one more entitled to this distinction than
any other, is Jacques Lefèvre. … Lefèvre was honored among the
Humanists as the restorer of philosophy and science in the
University. Deeply imbued with a religious spirit, in 1509 he
put forth a commentary on the Psalms, and in 1512 a commentary
on the Epistles of Paul. As early as about 1512, he said to
his pupil Farel: 'God will renovate the world, and you will be
a witness of it'; and in the last named work; he says that the
signs of the times betoken that a renovation of the Church is
near at hand. He teaches the doctrine of gratuitous
justification, and deals with the Scriptures as the supreme
and sufficient authority. But a mystical, rather than a
polemical vein characterizes him; and while this prevented him
from breaking with the Church, it also blunted the sharpness
of the opposition which his opinions were adapted to produce.
One of his pupils was Briçonnet, Bishop of Meaux, who held the
same view of justification with Lefèvre, and fostered the
evangelical doctrine in his diocese. The enmity of the
Sorbonne to Lefèvre and his school took a more aggressive form
when the writings of Luther began to be read in the University
and elsewhere. … The Sorbonne [1521] formally condemned a
dissertation of Lefèvre on a point of evangelical history, in
which he had controverted the traditional opinion. He, with
Farel, Gérard Roussel, and other preachers, found an asylum
with Briçonnet. Lefèvre translated the New Testament from the
Vulgate, and, in a commentary on the Gospels, explicitly
pronounced the Bible the sole rule of faith, which the
individual might interpret for himself, and declared
justification to be through faith alone, without human works
or merit. It seemed as if Meaux aspired to become another
Wittenberg. At length a commission of parliament was appointed
to take cognizance of heretics in that district. Briçonnet,
either intimidated, as Beza asserts, or recoiling at the sight
of an actual secession from the Church, joined in the
condemnation of Luther and of his opinions, and even
acquiesced in the persecution which fell upon Protestantism
within his diocese. Lefèvre fled to Strasburg, was afterwards
recalled by Francis I., but ultimately took up his abode in
the court of the King's sister, Margaret, the Queen of
Navarre. Margaret, from the first, was favorably inclined to
the new doctrines. There were two parties at the court. The
mother of the King, Louisa of Savoy, and the Chancellor
Duprat, were allies of the Sorbonne. … Margaret, on the
contrary, a versatile and accomplished princess, cherished a
mystical devotion which carried her beyond Briçonnet in her
acceptance of the teaching of the Reformers. … Before the
death of her first husband, the Duke of Alençon, and while she
was a widow, she exerted her influence to the full extent in
behalf of the persecuted Protestants, and in opposition to the
Sorbonne. After her marriage to Henry d'Albret, the King of
Navarre, she continued, in her own little court and
principality, to favor the reformed doctrine and its
professors. …
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563].
The drift of her influence appears in the character of her
daughter, the heroic Jeanne d'Albret, the mother of Henry IV.,
and in the readiness of the people over whom Margaret
immediately ruled to receive the Protestant faith. … Francis
I., whose generous patronage of artists and men of letters
gave him the title of 'Father of Science,' had no love for the
Sorbonne, for the Parliament, or for the monks. He entertained
the plan of bringing Erasmus to Paris, and placing him at the
head of an institution of learning. He read the Bible with his
mother and sister, and felt no superstitious aversion to the
leaders of reform. … The revolt of the Constable Bourbon [see
FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] made it necessary for Francis to
conciliate the clergy; and the battle of Pavia, followed by
the captivity of the King, and the regency of his mother, gave
a free rein to the persecutors. An inquisitorial court,
composed partly of laymen, was ordained by Parliament.
Heretics were burned at Paris and in the provinces. Louis de
Berquin, who combined a culture which won the admiration of
Erasmus, with the religious earnestness of Luther, was thrown
into prison." Three times the King interposed and rescued him
from the persecutors; but at last, in November, 1529, Berquin
was hanged and burned.
_G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 8._
"Such scenes [as the execution of Berquin], added to the
preaching and dissemination of the Scriptures and religious
tracts, caused the desire for reform to spread far and wide.
In the autumn of 1534, a violent placard against the mass was
posted about Paris, and one was even fixed on the king's own
chamber. The cry was soon raised, 'Death! death to the
heretics!' Francis had long dallied with the Reformation. …
Now … he develops into what was quite contrary to his
disposition, a cruel persecutor. A certain bourgeois of Paris,
unaffected by any heretical notions, kept in those days a
diary of what was going on in Paris, and from this precious
document … we learn that between the 13th of November, 1534,
and the 13th of March, 1535, twenty so-called Lutherans were
put to death in Paris. … The panic caused by the Anabaptist
outbreak at Munster may perhaps account for the extreme
cruelty, … as the siege was in actual progress at the time. It
was to defend the memories of the martyrs of the 29th of
January, 1535, and of others who had suffered elsewhere, and
to save, if possible, those menaced with a similar fate, that
Calvin wrote his 'Institution of the Christian Religion.' A
timid, feeble-bodied young student, he had fled from France
[1535], in the hope of finding some retreat where he might
lose himself in the studies he loved. Passing through Geneva
[1536] with the intention of staying there only for a night,
he met the indefatigable, ubiquitous, enterprising, courageous
Farel, who, taking him by the hand, adjured him to stop and
carry on the work in that city. Calvin shrank instinctively,
but … was forced to yield. … Calvin once settled at Geneva had
no more doubt about his calling than if he had been Moses
himself."
_R. Heath,
The Reformation in France,
book 1, chapters 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._
_R. T. Smith,
The Church in France,
chapter 12._
PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1555.
Beginnings of the Reformation in the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555.
{2454}
PAPACY: A. D. 1522.
Election of Adrian VI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
The deepening and strengthening of the Lutheran Reformation
and its systematic organization.
The two diets of Nuremberg.
The Catholic League of Ratisbon.
The formal adoption of the Reformed Religion in Northern Germany.
"Fortunately for the reformation, the emperor was prevented
from executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany,
by the civil commotions in Spain, and still more by the war
with Francis I., which extended into Spain, the Low Countries,
and Italy, and for above eight years involved him in a
continued series of contests and negotiations at a distance
from Germany. His brother, Ferdinand, on whom, as joint
president of the council of regency, the administration of
affairs devolved, was occupied in quelling the discontents in
the Austrian territories, and defending his right to the
crowns of Hungary and Bohemia; and thus the government of the
empire was left to the council of regency, of which several
members were inclined to favour innovation, In consequence of
these circumstances, the Lutherans were enabled to overcome
the difficulties to which innovators of every kind are
exposed; and they were no less favoured by the changes at the
court of Rome. Leo dying in 1521, Adrian, his successor, who,
by the influence of Charles, was raised to the pontifical
chair, on the 9th of January, 1522, saw and lamented the
corruptions of the church, and his ingenuous, but impolitic
confessions, that the whole church, both in its head and
members, required a thorough reformation, strengthened the
arguments of his opponents. … Nothing, perhaps, proved more
the surprising change of opinion in Germany, the rapid
increase of those whom we shall now distinguish by the name of
Lutherans, and the commencement of a systematic opposition to
the church of Rome, than the transactions of the two diets of
Nuremberg, which were summoned by the archduke Ferdinand,
principally for the purpose of enforcing the execution of the
edict of Worms. In a brief dated in November, 1522, and
addressed to the first diet, pope Adrian, after severely
censuring the princes of the empire for not carrying into
execution the edict of Worms, exhorted them, if mild and
moderate measures failed, to cut off Luther from the body of
the church, as a gangrened and incurable member. … At the same
time, with singular inconsistency, he acknowledged the
corruptions of the Roman court as the source of the evils
which overspread the church, [and] promised as speedy a
reformation as the nature of the abuses would admit. … The
members of the diet, availing themselves of his avowal,
advised him to assemble a council in Germany for the
reformation of abuses, and drew up a list of a hundred
grievances which they declared they would no longer tolerate,
and, if not speedily delivered from such burdens, would
procure relief by the authority with which God had intrusted
them. … The recess of the diet, published in March, 1523, was
framed with the same spirit; instead of threats of
persecution, it only enjoined all persons to wait with
patience the determination of a free council, forbade the
diffusion of doctrines likely to create disturbances, and
subjected all publications to the approbation of men of
learning and probity appointed by the magistrate. Finally, it
declared, that as priests who had married, or monks who had
quitted their convents, were not guilty of a civil crime, they
were only amenable to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
liable at the discretion of the ordinary to be deprived of
their ecclesiastical privileges and benefices. The Lutherans
derived their greatest advantages from these proceedings, as
the gross corruptions of the church of Rome were now proved by
the acknowledgment of the pontiff himself. … From this period
they confidently appealed to the confession of the pontiff,
and as frequently quoted the hundred grievances which were
enumerated in a public and authentic act of the Germanic body.
They not only regarded the recess as a suspension of the edict
of Worms, but construed the articles in their own favour. …
Hitherto the innovators had only preached against the
doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, without
exhibiting a regular system of their own." But now "Luther was
persuaded, at the instances of the Saxon clergy, to form a
regular system of faith and discipline; he translated the
service into the German tongue, modified the form of the mass,
and omitted many superstitious ceremonies; but he made as few
innovations as possible, consistently with his own principles.
To prevent also the total alienation or misuse of the
ecclesiastical revenues, he digested a project for their
administration, by means of an annual committee, and by his
writings and influence effected its introduction. Under this
judicious system the revenues of the church, after a provision
for the clergy, were appropriated for the support of schools;
for the relief of the poor, sick, and aged, of orphans and
widows; for the reparation of churches and sacred buildings;
and for the erection of magazines and the purchase of corn
against periods of scarcity. These regulations and ordinances,
though not established with the public approbation of the
elector, were yet made with his tacit acquiescence, and may be
considered as the first institution of a reformed system of
worship and ecclesiastical polity; and in this institution the
example of the churches of Saxony was followed by all the
Lutheran communities in Germany. The effects of these changes
were soon visible, and particularly at the meeting of the
second diet of Nuremberg, on the 10th of January, 1524. Faber,
canon of Strasburgh, who had been enjoined to make a progress
through Germany for the purpose of preaching against the
Lutheran doctrines, durst not execute his commission, although
under the sanction of a safe conduct from the council of
regency. Even the legate Campegio could not venture to make
his public entry into Nuremberg with the insignia of his
dignity, … for fear of being insulted by the populace. …
Instead, therefore, of annulling the acts of the preceding
diet, the new assembly pursued the same line of conduct. … The
recess was, if possible, still more galling to the court of
Rome, and more hostile to its prerogatives than that of the
former diet. … The Catholics, thus failing in their efforts to
obtain the support of the diet, on the 6th of July, 1524,
entered into an association at Ratisbon, under the auspices of
Campegio, in which the archduke Ferdinand, the duke of
Bavaria, and most of the German bishops concurred, for
enforcing the edict of Worms.
{2455}
At the same time, to conciliate the Germans, the legate
published 29 articles for, the amendment of some abuses; but
these being confined to points of minor importance, and
regarding only the inferior clergy, produced no satisfaction,
and were attended with no effect. Notwithstanding this
formidable union of the Catholic princes, the proceedings of
the diet of Nuremberg were but the prelude to more decisive
innovations, which followed each other with wonderful
rapidity. Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, dying in 1525,
was succeeded by his brother, John the Constant, who publicly
espoused and professed the Lutheran doctrines. The system
recently digested by Luther, with many additional alterations,
was introduced by his authority, and declared the established
religion; and by his order the celebrated Melanchthon drew up
an apology in defence of the reformed tenets for the princes
who adopted them. Luther himself, who had in the preceding
year thrown off the monastic habit, soon after the accession
of the new sovereign ventured to give the last proof of his
emancipation from the fetters of the church of Rome, by
espousing, on the 13th of July, 1525, Catherine Bora, a noble
lady, who had escaped from the nunnery at Nimptschen, and
taken up her residence at Wittemberg. The example of the
elector of Saxony was followed by Philip, landgrave of Hesse
Cassel, a prince of great influence and distinguished civil
and military talents; by the dukes of Mecklenburgh, Pomerania,
and Zell; and by the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Strasburgh,
Frankfort, Nordhausen, Magdeburgh, Brunswick, Bremen, and
others of less importance. … Albert, margrave of Brandenburgh,
grand-master of the Teutonic order, … in 1525, renounced his
vow of celibacy, made a public profession of the Lutheran
tenets, and, with the consent of Sigismond, king of Poland,
secularised Eastern Prussia."
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 28 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 3, chapters 2-5 (volume 2)._
_P. Bayne,
Martin Luther: his Life and Work,
books 10-13 (volume 2)._
_L. Häusser,
The Period of the Reformation,
chapters 5-6._
PAPACY: A. D. 1523.
Election of Clement VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1523-1527.
The double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with the emperor
and the king of France.
Imperial revenge.
The sack of Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, and 1527.
PAPACY: A. D. 1524.
Institution of the Order of the Theatines.
See THEATINES.
PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
The League of Torgau.
Contradictory action of the Diets at Spires.
The Protest of Lutheran princes which gave
rise to the name "Protestants."
"At the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an
assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of
ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand
from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points
in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth,
and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to
deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform.
The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the
majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in
an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to
prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out
between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to
offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires, and, by
letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to
drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In
consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of
Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive
league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several
Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of
Francis I. [see FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525] were events that
appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In
the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed
the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous
preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm
throughout Europe; and the release of Francis was followed by
the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which
Clement was the leading promoter.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
This changed the imperial policy in reference to the
Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved
that, until the meeting of a general council, every state
should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer
to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to
stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of
the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act
according to its own will. It was a measure of the highest
importance to the cause of Protestantism. It is a great
landmark in the history of the German Reformation. The war of
the Emperor and the Pope involved the necessity of tolerating
the Lutherans. In 1527, an imperial army, composed largely of
Lutheran infantry, captured and sacked the city of Rome. For
several months the Pope was held a prisoner. For a number of
years the position of Charles with respect to France and the
Pope, and the fear of Turkish invasion, had operated to
embolden and greatly strengthen the cause of Luther. But now
that the Emperor had gained a complete victory in Italy, the
Catholic party revived its policy of repression."
_G. P. Fisher,
The Reformation,
chapter 4._
"While Charles and Clement were arranging matters in 1529, a
new Diet was held at Spires, and the reactionists exerted
themselves to obtain a reversal of that ordinance of the Diet
of 1526 which had given to the reformed doctrines a legal
position in Germany. Had it heen possible, the Papist leaders
would have forced back the Diet on the old Edict of Worms, but
in this they were baffled. Then they took up another line of
defence and aggression. Where the Worms Edict had been
enforced, it was, they urged, to be maintained; but all
further propagation of the reformed doctrines, all religious
innovation whatever, was to be forbidden, pending the
assemblage of a General Council. … This doom of arrest and
paralysis —this imperious mandate, 'Hitherto shall ye come,
but no further,'—could not be brooked by the followers of
Luther. They possessed the advantage of being admirably led.
Philip of Hesse supplied some elements of sound counsel that
were wanting in Luther himself. … Luther regarded with favour
… the doctrine of passive obedience. It was too much his
notion that devout Germans, if their Emperor commanded them to
renounce the truth, should simply die at the stake without a
murmur. …
{2456}
The most ripe and recent inquiries seem to prove that it was
about this very time, when the Evangelical Princes and Free
Cities of Germany were beginning to put shoulder to shoulder
and organise resistance, in arms if necessary, to the Emperor
and the Pope, that Luther composed 'Ein' feste Burg ist unser
Gott,' a psalm of trust in God, and in God only, as the
protector of Christians. He took no fervent interest, however,
in the Diet; and Philip and his intrepid associates derived
little active support from him. These were inflexibly
determined that the decree of the majority should not be
assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George
the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and
Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of
Strasburg, Nürnberg, and twelve other free cities [Ulm,
Constance, Reutlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindau, Kempten,
Heilbron, Isna, Weissemburgh, Nordlingen, and St. Gallen],
entered a solemn protest against the Popish resolution. They
were called Protestants. The name, as is customary with names
that felicitously express and embody facts, was caught up in
Germany and passed into every country in Europe and the
world."
_P. Bayne,
Martin Luther, his Life and Work,
book 14, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
books 4-5 (volumes 2-3)._
_J. H. Merle D'Aubigne,
History of the Reformation,
book 10, chapter 14,
and book 13, chapter 1-6 (volumes 3-4)._
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 311 (volume 3)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1527-1533.
The rupture with England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534.
PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
The Diet at Augsburg.
Presentation and condemnation of the
Protestant Confession of Faith.
The breach with the Reformation complete.
"In the year 1530, Charles V., seeing France prostrate, Italy
quelled, and Solyman driven within his own boundaries,
determined upon undertaking the decision of the great question
of the Reformation. The two conflicting parties were summoned,
and met at Augsburg. The sectaries of Luther, known by the
general name of protestants, were desirous to be distinguished
from the other enemies of Rome, the excesses committed by whom
would have thrown odium upon their cause; to be distinguished
from the Zwinglian republicans of Switzerland, odious to the
princes and to the nobles; above all, they desired not to be
confounded with the anabaptists, proscribed by all as the
enemies of society and of social order. Luther, over whom
there was still suspended the sentence pronounced against him
at Worms, whereby he was declared a heretic, could not appear
at Augsburg; his place was supplied by the learned and pacific
Melancthon, a man timid and gentle as Erasmus, whose friend he
continued to be, despite of Luther. The elector, however,
conveyed the great reformer as near to the place of
convocation as regard to his friend's personal safety rendered
advisable. He had him stationed in the strong fortress of
Coburg. From this place, Luther was enabled to maintain with
ease and expedition a constant intercourse with the protestant
ministers. … Melancthon believed in the possibility of
effecting a reconciliation between the two parties. Luther, at
a very early period of the schism, saw that they were utterly
irreconcilable. In the commencement of the Reformation, he had
frequently had recourse to conferences and to public
disputations. It was then of moment to him to resort to every
effort, to try, by all the means in his power, to preserve the
bond of Christianity, before he abandoned all hope of so
doing. But towards the close of his life, dating from the
period of the Diet of Augsburg, he openly discouraged and
disclaimed these wordy contests, in which the vanquished would
never avow his defeat. On the 26th of August, 1530, he writes:
'I am utterly opposed to any effort being made to reconcile
the two doctrines; for it is an impossibility, unless, indeed,
the pope will consent to abjure papacy. Let it suffice us that
we have established our belief upon the basis of reason, and
that we have asked for peace. Why hope to convert them to the
truth?' And on the same day (26th August), he tells Spalatin:
'I understand you have undertaken a notable mission—that of
reconciling Luther and the pope. But the pope will not be
reconciled and Luther refuses. Be mindful how you sacrifice
both time and trouble.' … These prophecies were, however,
unheeded: the conferences took place, and the protestants were
required to furnish their profession of faith. This was drawn
up by Melancthon." The Confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
was adopted and signed by five electors, 30 ecclesiastical
princes, 23 secular princes, 22 abbots, 32 counts and barons,
and 39 free and imperial cities, and has since been known as
the Augsburg Confession.
_J. Michelet,
Life of Luther,
(translated by W. Hazlitt),
book 3, chapter 1._
"A difficulty now arose as to the public reading of the
Confession in the Diet. The Protestant princes, who had
severally signed it, contended against the Catholic princes,
that, in fairness, it should be read; and, against the
emperor, that, if read at all, it should be read in German,
and not in Latin. They were successful in both instances, and
the Confession was publicly read in German by Bayer, one of
the two chancellors of the Elector of Saxony, during the
afternoon session of June 25, held in the chapel of the
imperial palace. Campeggio, the Papal Legate, was absent. The
reading occupied two hours, and the powerful effect it
produced was, in a large measure, due to the rich, sonorous
voice of Bayer, and to his distinct articulation and the
musical cadence of his periods. Having finished, he handed the
Confession to the Emperor, who submitted it for examination to
Eck, Conrad Wimpina, Cochlæus, John Faber, and others of the
Catholic theologians present in the Diet." These prepared a
"Confutation" which was "finally agreed upon and read in a
public session of the Diet, held August 3rd, and with which
the Emperor and the Catholic princes expressed themselves
fully satisfied. The Protestant princes were commanded to
disclaim their errors, and return to the allegiance of the
ancient faith, and 'should you refuse,' the Emperor added, 'we
shall regard it a conscientious duty to proceed as our
coronation oath and our office of protector of Holy Church
require.' This declaration roused the indignant displeasure of
the Protestant princes. Philip of Hesse … excited general
alarm by abruptly breaking off the transactions, lately
entered upon between the princes and the bishops, and suddenly
quitting Augsburg. Charles V. now ordered the controverted
points to be discussed in his presence, and appointed seven
Protestants and an equal number of Catholics to put forward
and defend the views of their respective parties."
{2457}
Subsequently Melancthon "prepared and published his 'Apology
for the Augsburg Confession,' which was intended to be an
answer to the 'Confutation' of the Catholic theologians. The
Protestant princes laid a copy of the 'Apology' before the
emperor, who rejected both it and the Confession. … After many
more fruitless attempts to bring about a reconciliation, the
emperor, on the 22nd of September, the day previous to that
fixed for the departure of the Elector of Saxony, published an
edict, in which he stated, among other things, that 'the
Protestants have been refuted by sound and irrefragable
arguments drawn from Holy Scripture.' 'To deny free-will,' he
went on to say, 'and to affirm that faith without works avails
for man's salvation, is to assert what is absurdly erroneous;
for, as we very well know from past experience, were such
doctrines to prevail, all true morality would perish from the
earth. But that the Protestants may have sufficient time to
consider their future course of action, we grant them from
this to the 15th of April of next year for consideration.' On
the following day, Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg, speaking
in the emperor's name, addressed the evangelic princes and
deputies of the Protestant cities as follows: 'His majesty is
extremely amazed at your persisting in the assertion that your
doctrines are based on Holy Scripture. Were your assertion
true, then would it follow that his Majesty's ancestors,
including so many kings and emperors, as well as the ancestors
of the Elector of Saxony, were heretics!' … The Protestant
princes forthwith took their leave of the emperor. On the 13th
of October, the 'Recess,' or decree of the Diet, was read to
the Catholic States, which on the same day entered into a
Catholic League. On the 17th of the same month, sixteen of the
more important German cities refused to aid the emperor in
repelling the Turks, on the ground that peace had not yet been
secured to Germany. The Zwinglian and Lutheran cities were
daily becoming more sympathetic and cordial in their relations
to each other. Charles V. informed the Holy See, October 23,
of his intention of drawing the sword in defence of the faith.
The 'Recess' was read to the Protestant princes November 11,
and rejected by them on the day following, and the deputies of
Hesse and Saxony took their departure immediately after. … The
decree was rather more severe than the Protestants had
anticipated, inasmuch as the emperor declared that he felt it
to be his conscientious duty to defend the ancient faith, and
that 'the Catholic princes had promised to aid him to the full
extent of their power.' … The appointment of the emperor's
brother, Ferdinand, as King of the Romans (1531), gave deep
offence to the Protestant princes, who now expressed their
determination of withholding all assistance from the emperor
until the 'Recess' of Augsburg should have been revoked.
Assembling at Smalkald, … they entered into an alliance
offensive and defensive, known as the League of Smalkald, on
March 29, 1531, to which they severally bound themselves to
remain faithful for a period of six years."
_J. Alzog,
Manual of Universal Church History,
section 312 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Worsley,
Life of Luther,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
_F. A. Cox,
Life of Melancthon,
chapter 8 (giving the text of the "Augsburg Confession")._
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1532.
Protestant League of Smalkalde and
alliance with the king of France.
The Pacification of Nuremberg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
PAPACY: A. D. 1533.
Treaty of Pope Clement VII. with Francis I. of France,
for the marriage of Catherine d'Medici.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
PAPACY: A. D. 1533-1546.
Mercenary aspects of the Reformation in Germany.
The Catholic Holy League.
Preparations for war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.
PAPACY: A. D. 1534.
Election of Paul III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540.
Beginnings of the Counter-Reformation.
"A well-known sentence in Macaulay's Essay on Ranke's 'History
of the Popes' asserts, correctly enough, that in a particular
epoch of history 'the Church of Rome, having lost a large part
of Europe, not only ceased to lose, but actually regained
nearly half of what she had lost.' Any fairly correct use of
the familiar phrase 'the Counter-Reformation' must imply that
this remarkable result was due to a movement pursuing two
objects, originally distinct, though afterwards largely
blended, viz., the regeneration of the Church of Rome, and the
recovery of the losses inflicted upon her by the early
successes of Protestantism. … The earliest continuous
endeavour to regenerate the Church of Rome without impairing
her cohesion dates from the Papacy of Paul III. [1534-1549],
within which also falls the outbreak of the first religious
war of the century.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
Thus the two impulses which it was the special task of the
Counter-Reformation to fuse were brought into immediate
contact. The onset of the combat is marked by the formal
establishment of the Jesuit Order [1540] as a militant agency
devoted alike to both the purposes of the Counter-Reformation,
and by the meeting of the Council of Trent [1545] under
conditions excluding from its programme the task of
conciliation."
_A. W. Ward,
The Counter Reformation,
pages vii-viii._
"I intend to use this term Counter-Reformation to denote the
reform of the Catholic Church, which was stimulated by the
German Reformation, and which, when the Council of Trent had
fixed the dogmas and discipline of Latin Christianity, enabled
the Papacy to assume a militant policy in Europe, whereby it
regained a large portion of the provinces that had previously
lapsed to Lutheran and Calvinistic dissent. … The centre of
the world-wide movement which is termed the
Counter-Reformation was naturally Rome. Events had brought the
Holy See once more into a position of prominence. It was more
powerful as an Italian State now, through the support of Spain
and the extinction of national independence, than at any
previous period of history. In Catholic Christendom its
prestige was immensely augmented by the Council of Trent. At
the same epoch, the foreigners who dominated Italy, threw
themselves with the enthusiasm of fanaticism into this
Revival. Spain furnished Rome with the militia of the Jesuits
and with the engines of the Inquisition. The Papacy was thus
able to secure successes in Italy which were elsewhere only
partially achieved. … In order to understand the transition of
Italy from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation manner,
it will be well to concentrate attention on the history of the
Papacy during the eight reigns [1534-1605] of Paul III., Julius
III., Paul IV., Pius IV., Pius V., Gregory XIII., Sixtus V.,
and Clement VIII. In the first of these reigns we hardly
notice that the Renaissance has passed away. In the last we
are aware of a completely altered Italy."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
chapter 2, with foot-note (volume 1)._
{2458}
PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
Popular weakness of the Reformation movement in Italy.
Momentary inclination towards the Reform at Rome.
Beginning of the Catholic Reaction.
The Council of Trent and its consolidating work.
"The conflict with the hierarchy did not take the same form in
Italy as elsewhere. … There is no doubt that the masses saw no
cause for discontent under it. We have proof that the
hierarchy was popular—that among the people, down to the
lowest grades, the undiminished splendour of the Papacy was
looked upon as a pledge of the power of Italy. But this did
not prevent reform movements from taking place. The Humanistic
school had its home here; its opposition tendencies had not
spared the Church any more than Scholasticism; it had
everywhere been the precursor and ally of the intellectual
revolt, and not the least in Italy. There were from the first
eminent individuals at Venice, Modena, Ferrara, Florence, even
in the States of the Church themselves, who were more or less
followers of Luther. The cardinals Contarini and Morone, Bembo
and Sadolet, distinguished preachers like Peter Martyr, Johann
Valdez, and Bernardino Occhino, and from among the princely
families an intellectual lady, Renata of Ferrara, were
inclined to the new doctrines. But they were leaders without
followers; the number of their adherents among the masses was
surprisingly small. The Roman Curia, under the Pontificate of
Paul III., 1534-49, vacillated in its policy for a time;
between 1537-41, the prevailing sentiments were friendly and
conciliatory towards Reform. … They were, in fact, gravely
entertaining the question at Rome, whether it would not be
better to come to terms with Reform, to adopt the practicable
part of its programme, and so put an end to the schism which
was spreading so fast in the Church. … An honest desire then
still prevailed to effect a reconciliation. Contarini was in
favour of it with his whole soul. But it proceeded no further
than the attempt; for once the differences seemed likely to be
adjusted, so far as this was possible; but in 1542, the
revulsion took place, which was never again reversed. Only one
result remained. The Pope could no longer refuse to summon a
council. The Emperor had been urging it year after year; the
Pope had acceded to it further than any of his predecessors
had done; and, considering the retreat which now took place,
this concession was the least that could be demanded. At
length, therefore, three years after it was convened, in May,
1542, the council assembled at Trent in December, 1545. It was
the Emperor's great desire that a council should be held in
Germany, that thus the confidence of the Germans in the
supreme tribunal in the great controversy might be gained; but
the selection of Trent, which nominally belonged to Germany,
was the utmost concession that could be obtained. The
intentions of the Emperor and the Pope with regard to the
council were entirely opposed to each other. The Pope was
determined to stifle all opposition in the bud, while the
Emperor was very desirous of having a counterpoise to the
Pope's supremacy in council, provided always that it concurred
in the imperial programme. … The assembly consisted of Spanish
and Italian monks in overwhelming majority, and this was
decisive as to its character. When consulted as to the course
of business, the Emperor had expressed a wish that those
questions on which agreement between the parties was possible
should first be discussed. There were a number of questions on
which they were agreed, as, for example, Greek Christianity.
Even now there are a number of points on which Protestants and
Catholics are agreed, and differ from the Eastern Church. If
these questions were considered first, the attendance of the
Protestants would be rendered very much easier; it would open
the door as widely as possible, they would probably come in
considerable numbers, and might in time take a part which at
least might not be distasteful to the Emperor, and might
influence his ideas on Church reform. The thought that they
were heretics was half concealed. But Rome was determined to
pursue the opposite course, and at once to agitate those
questions on which there was the most essential disagreement,
and to declare all who would not submit to be incorrigible
heretics. … The first subjects of discussion were, the
authority of the Scriptures in the text of the Vulgate,
ecclesiastical tradition, the right of interpretation, the
doctrine of justification. These were the questions on which
the old and new doctrines were irreconcilably at variance; all
other differences were insignificant in comparison. And these
questions were decided in the old Roman Catholic sense; not
precisely as they had been officially treated in 1517—for the
stream of time had produced some little effect—but in the main
the old statutes were adhered to, and everything rejected
which departed from them. This conduct was decisive. …
Nevertheless some reforms were carried out. Between the time
of meeting and adjournment, December, 1545, to the spring of
1547, the following were the main points decided on:
1. The bishops were to provide better teachers and better
schools.
2. The bishops should themselves expound the word of God.
3. Penalties were to be enforced for the neglect of their
duties, and various rules were laid down as to the necessary
qualifications for the office of a bishop.
Dispensations, licenses, and privileges were abolished. The
Church was therefore to be subjected to a reform which
abolished sundry abuses, without conceding any change in her
teaching. The course the council was taking excited the
Emperor's extreme displeasure. … He organized a sort of
opposition to Rome; his commissaries kept up a good
understanding with the Protestants, and it was evident that he
meant to make use of them for an attack on the Pope. This made
Rome eager to withdraw the assembly from the influence of
German bishops and imperial agents as soon as possible. A
fever which had broken out at Trent, but had soon disappeared,
was made a pretext for transferring the council to Bologna, in
the spring of 1547. The imperial commissioners protested that
the decrees of such a hole-and-corner council would be null
and void. The contest remained undecided for years. Paul III.
died in the midst of it, in November, 1549, and was succeeded
by Cardinal del Monte, one of the papal legates at the
council, as Pope Julius III.
{2459}
The Emperor at length came to an understanding with him, and
in May, 1551, the council was again opened at Trent. … The
assembly remained Catholic; the Protestant elements, which
were represented at first, all disappeared after the turn of
affairs in 1552.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552; and 1552-1561.
After that there was no further thought of an understanding
with the heretics. The results for reform were very small
indeed. The proceedings were dragging wearily on when a fresh
adjournment was announced in 1552. Pope Julius III. died in
March, 1555. His successor, the noble Cardinal Cervin, elected
as Marcellus II., died after only twenty-two days, and was
succeeded by Cardinal Caraffa as Paul IV., 1555-9. … He was
the Pope of the restoration. The warm Neapolitan blood flowed
in his veins, and he was a fiery, energetic character. He was
not in favour of any concessions or abatement, but for a
complete breach with the new doctrines, and a thorough
exclusiveness for the ancient Church. He was one of the ablest
men of the time. As early as in 1542, he had advised that no
further concessions should be made, but that the Inquisition,
of which indeed he was the creator, should be restored. It was
he who decidedly initiated the great Catholic reaction. He
established the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, instituted the
first Index, and gave the Jesuits his powerful support in the
interests of the restoration. This turn of affairs was the
answer to the German religious Peace. Since the Protestants no
longer concerned themselves about Rome, Rome was about to set
her house in order without them, and as a matter of course the
council stood still." But in answer to demands from several
Catholic princes, "the council was convened afresh by the next
Pope, Pius IV. (1559-65), in November, 1560, and so the
Council of Trent was opened for the third time in January,
1562. Then began the important period of the council, during
which the legislation to which it has given a name was
enacted. … The Curia reigned supreme, and, in spite of the
remonstrances of the Emperor and of France, decided that the
council should be considered a continuation of the previous
ones, which meant—'All the decrees aimed against the
Protestants are in full force; we have no further idea of
coming to terms with them.' The next proceeding was to
interdict books and arrange an Index. …
See PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
The restoration of the indisputable authority of the Pope was
the ruling principle of all the decrees. … The great
achievement of the council for the unity of the Catholic
Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one
consistent principle, that which in ancient times had been
variable and uncertain, and which had been almost lost sight
of in the last great revolution. Controverted questions were
replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions by definite doctrines;
a uniformity was established in matters of faith and
discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable
bulwark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the
tendency to innovation. Still when this unity was established
upon a solid basis, the universal Church of former times was
torn asunder." The Council of Trent was closed December 4,
1563, 18 years after its opening.
_L. Häusser,
Period of the Reformation,
chapters 19 and 16._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
chapters 2-3 (volume l)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Popes,
books 2-3 (volume l)._
_L. F. Bungener,
History of the Council of Trent._
_T. R. Evans,
The Council of Trent._
_A. de Reumont,
The Carafas of Maddaloni,
book 1, chapter 3._
[IMAGE: Map of CENTRAL EUROPE
AT THE ABDICATION OF CHARLES V (1556).
AUSTRIAN HAPSBURGS.
SPANISH HAPSBURGS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
GENOESE POSSESSIONS.
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.]
[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIONS ABOUT 1618.
LUTHERAN.
ZWINGLIAN.
CALVINIST.
UNITED BRETHREN.
CATHOLIC.
LANDS RECLAIMED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
DURING THE COUNTER REFORMATION SHOWN THUS.
GREEK.
MOHAMMEDAN.]
PAPACY: A. D. 1540.
The founding of the Order of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.
PAPACY: A. D. 1545-1550.
Separation of Parma and Placentia from the States
of the Church to form a duchy for the Pope's family.
The Farnese.
See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
PAPACY: A. D. 1550.
Election of Julius III.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (April).
Election of Marcellus II.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555 (May).
Election of Paul IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1555-1603.
The aggressive age of the reinvigorated Church.
Attachment and subserviency to Spain.
Giovanni Piero Caraffa, founder of the Order of the Theatines,
was raised to the papal chair in 1555, assuming the title of
Paul IV. He "entered on his station with the haughty notions
of its prerogatives which were natural to his austere and
impetuous spirit. Hence his efforts in concert with France,
unsuccessful as they proved, to overthrow the Spanish
greatness, that he might extricate the popedom from the
galling state of dependence to which the absolute ascendancy
of that power in Italy had reduced it. Paul IV. is remarkable
as the last pontiff who embarked in a contest which had now
become hopeless, and as the first who, giving a new direction
to the policy of the holy see, employed all the influence, the
arts, and the resources of the Roman church against the
protestant cause. He had, during the pontificate of Paul III.
[1534-1549], already made himself conspicuous for his
persecuting zeal. He had been the principal agent in the
establishment of the inquisition at Rome, and had himself
filled the office of grand inquisitor. He seated himself in
the chair of St. Peter with the detestable spirit of that
vocation; and the character of his pontificate responded to
the violence of his temper. His mantle descended upon a long
series of his successors. Pius IV., who replaced him on his
death in 1559; Pius V., who received the tiara in the
following year; Gregory XIII., who was elected in 1572, and
died in 1585; Sixtus V., who next reigned until 1590; Urban
VII., Gregory XIV., and Innocent IX., who each filled the
papal chair only a few months; and Clement VIII., whose
pontificate commenced in 1592 and extended beyond the close of
the century [1603]: all pursued the same political and
religious system. Resigning the hope, and perhaps the desire,
of re-establishing the independence of their see, they
maintained an intimate and obsequious alliance with the royal
bigot of Spain; they seconded his furious persecution of the
protestant faith; they fed the civil wars of the Low
Countries, of France, and of Germany."
_G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9._
"The Papacy and Catholicism had long maintained themselves
against these advances of their enemy [the Protestant
Reformation], in an attitude of defence it is true, but
passive only; upon the whole they were compelled to endure
them. Affairs now assumed a different aspect. … It may be
affirmed generally that a vital and active force was again
manifested, that the church had regenerated her creed in the
spirit of the age, and had established reforms in accordance
with the demands of the times.
{2460}
The religious tendencies which had appeared in southern Europe
were not suffered to become hostile to herself, she adopted
them, and gained the mastery of their movements; thus she
renewed her powers, and infused fresh vigour into her system.
… The influence of the restored Catholic system was first
established in the two southern peninsulas, but this was not
accomplished without extreme severities. The Spanish
Inquisition received the aid of that lately revived in Rome;
every movement of Protestantism was violently suppressed. But
at the same time those tendencies of the inward life which
renovated Catholicism claimed and enchained as her own, were
peculiarly powerful in those countries. "The sovereigns also
attached themselves to the interests of the church. It was of
the highest importance that Philip II., the most powerful of
all, adhered so decidedly to the popedom; with the pride of a
Spaniard, by whom unimpeachable Catholicism was regarded as a
sign of a purer blood and more noble descent, he rejected
every adverse opinion: the character of his policy was however
not wholly governed by mere personal feeling. From remote
times, and more especially since the regulations established
by Isabella, the kingly dignity of Spain had assumed an
ecclesiastical character; in every province the royal
authority was strengthened by the addition of spiritual power;
deprived of the Inquisition, it would not have sufficed to
govern the kingdom. Even in his American possessions, the king
appeared above all in the light of a disseminator of the
Christian and Catholic faith. This was the bond by which all
his territories were united in obedience to his rule; he could
not have abandoned it, without incurring real danger. The
extension of Huguenot opinions in the south of France caused
the utmost alarm in Spain; the Inquisition believed itself
bound to redoubled vigilance. … The power possessed by Philip
in the Netherlands secured to the southern system an immediate
influence over the whole of Europe; but besides this, all was
far from being lost in other countries. The emperor, the kings
of France and Poland, with the duke of Bavaria, still adhered
to the Catholic church. On all sides there were spiritual
princes whose expiring zeal might be reanimated; there were
also many places where Protestant opinions had not yet made
their way among the mass of the people. The majority of the
peasantry throughout France, Poland, and even Hungary, still
remained Catholic. Paris, which even in those days exercised a
powerful influence over the other French towns, had not yet
been affected by the new doctrines. In England a great part of
the nobility and commons were still Catholic; and in Ireland
the whole of the ancient native population remained in the old
faith. Protestantism had gained no admission into the Tyrolese
or Swiss Alps, nor had it made any great progress among the
peasantry of Bavaria. Canisius compared the Tyrolese and
Bavarians with the two tribes of Israel, 'who alone remained
faithful to the Lord.' The internal causes on which this
pertinacity, this immovable attachment to tradition, among
nations so dissimilar, was founded, might well repay a more
minute examination. A similar constancy was exhibited in the
Walloon provinces of the Netherlands. And now the papacy
resumed a position in which it could once more gain the
mastery of all these inclinations, and bind them indissolubly
to itself. Although it had experienced great changes, it still
possessed the inestimable advantage of having all the
externals of the past and the habit of obedience on its side.
In the council so prosperously concluded, the popes had even
gained an accession of that authority which it had been the
purpose of the temporal powers to restrict; and had
strengthened their influence over the national churches; they
had moreover abandoned that temporal policy by which they had
formerly involved Italy and all Europe in confusion. They
attached themselves to Spain with perfect confidence and
without any reservations, fully returning the devotion evinced
by that kingdom to the Roman church. The Italian principality,
the enlarged dominions of the pontiff, contributed eminently
to the success of his ecclesiastical enterprises; while the
interests of the universal Catholic church were for some time
essentially promoted by the overplus of its revenues. Thus
strengthened internally, thus supported by powerful adherents,
and by the idea of which they were the representatives, the
popes exchanged the defensive position, with which they had
hitherto been forced to content themselves, for that of
assailants."
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 5, section 2 (volume 1)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1559.
Election of Pius IV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1559-1595.
The institution of the Index.
"The first 'Index' of prohibited books published by Papal
authority, and therefore, unlike the 'catalogi' previously
issued by royal, princely, or ecclesiastical authorities,
valid for the whole Church, was that authorised by a bull of
Paul IV. in 1559. In 1564 followed the Index published by Pius
IV., as drawn up in harmony with the decrees of the Council of
Trent, which, after all, appears to be a merely superficial
revision of its predecessor. Other Indices followed, for which
various authorities were responsible, the most important among
them being the Index Expurgatorius, sanctioned by a bull of
Clement VIII. in 1595, which proved so disastrous to the great
printing trade of Venice."
_A. W. Ward,
The Counter-Reformation,
chapter 2._
PAPACY: A. D. 1566.
Election of Pius V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1570-1571.
Holy League with Venice and Spain against the Turks.
Great battle and victory of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
PAPACY: A. D. 1572 (May).
Election of Gregory XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1572.
Reception of the news of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
Election of Sixtus V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1585.
The Bull against Henry of Navarre, called "Brutum Fulmen."
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (September).
Election of Urban VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1590 (December).
Election of Gregory XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
Election of Innocent IX.
PAPACY: A. D. 1591.
Election of Clement VIII.
{2461}
PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.
"The loss which the papal states sustained by the alienation
of Parma and Placentia was repaired, before the end of the
16th century, by the acquisition of a duchy little inferior in
extent to those territories:—that of Ferrara." With the death,
in 1597, of Alfonso II., the persecutor of Tasso, "terminated
the legitimate Italian branch of the ancient and illustrious
line of Este. But there remained an illegitimate
representative of his house, whom he designed for his
successor; don Cesare da Este, the grandson of Alfonso I. by a
natural son of that duke. The inheritance of Ferrara and
Modena had passed in the preceding century to bastards,
without opposition from the popes, the feudal superiors of the
former duchy. But the imbecile character of don Cesare now
encouraged the reigning pontiff, Clement VIII., to declare
that all the ecclesiastical fiefs of the house of Este
reverted, of right, to the holy see on the extinction of the
legitimate line. The papal troops, on the death of Alfonso
II., invaded the Ferrarese state; and Cesare suffered himself
to be terrified by their approach into an ignominious and
formal surrender of that duchy to the holy see. By the
indifference of the Emperor Rodolph II., he was permitted to
retain the investiture of the remaining possessions of his
ancestors: the duchies of Modena and Reggio, over which, as
imperial and not papal fiefs, the pope could not decently
assert any right. In passing beneath the papal yoke, the duchy
of Ferrara, which, under the government of the house of Este,
had been one of the most fertile provinces of Italy, soon
became a desert and marshy waste. The capital itself lost its
industrious population and commercial riches; its
architectural magnificence crumbled into ruins, and its modern
aspect retains no trace of that splendid court in which
literature and art repaid the fostering protection of its
sovereigns, by reflecting lustre on their heads."
_G. Procter,
History of Italy,
chapter 9._
PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (April).
Election of Leo XI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1605 (May).
Election of Paul V.
PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
The conflict with Venice.
Opposition of Urban VIII. to the Emperor.
Annexation of Urbino to the States of the Church.
Half a century of unimportant history.
"Paul V. (1605-1621) was imbued with mediæval ideas as to the
papal authority and the validity of the canon-law. These
speedily brought him into collision with the secular power,
especially in Venice, which had always maintained an attitude
of independence towards the papacy. Ecclesiastical disputes
[growing out of a Venetian decree forbidding alienations of
secular property in favor of the churches] were aggravated by
the fact that the acquisition of Ferrara had extended the
papal states to the frontiers of Venice, and that frequent
differences arose as to the boundary line between them. The
defence of the republic and of the secular authority in church
affairs was undertaken with great zeal and ability by Fra
Paoli Sarpi, the famous historian of the Council of Trent.
Paul V. did not hesitate to excommunicate the Venetians
[1606], but the government compelled the clergy to disregard
the pope's edict. The Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins were
the only orders that adhered to the papacy, and they had to
leave the city. If Spain had not been under the rule of the
pacific Lerma, it would probably have seized the opportunity
to punish Venice for its French alliance. But France and Spain
were both averse to war, and Paul V. had to learn that the
papacy was powerless without secular support. By the mediation
of the two great powers, a compromise was arranged in 1607.
The Jesuits, however, remained excluded from Venetian
territory for another half-century. This was the first serious
reverse encountered by the Catholic reaction. …
See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
The attention of the Catholic world was now absorbed in the
Austrian schemes for the repression of Protestantism in
Germany, which received the unhesitating support both of Paul
and of his successor, Gregory XV. [1621-1623]. The latter was
a great patron of the Jesuits. Under him the Propaganda was
first set on foot. … The pontificate of Urban VIII.
(1623-1644) was a period of great importance. He regarded
himself rather as a temporal prince than as head of the
Church. He fortified Rome and filled his states with troops.
The example of Julius II. seemed to find an imitator. Urban
was imbued with the old Italian jealousy of the imperial
power, and allied himself closely with France. … At the moment
when Ferdinand II. had gained his greatest success in Germany
he was confronted with the hostility of the pope. Gustavus
Adolphus landed in Germany, and by a strange coincidence
Protestantism found support in the temporal interests of the
papacy. The Catholics were astounded and dismayed by Urban's
attitude. … Urban VIII. succeeded in making an important
addition to the papal states by the annexation of Urbino, in
1631, on the death of Francesco Maria, the last duke of the
Della Rovere family. But in the government of the states he
met with great difficulties. … Urban VIII.'s relatives, the
Barberini, quarreled with the Farnesi, who had held Parma and
Piacenza since the pontificate of Paul III. The pope was
induced to claim the district of Castro, and this claim
aroused a civil war (1641-1644) in which the papacy was
completely worsted. Urban was forced to conclude a humiliating
treaty and directly afterwards died. His successors [Innocent
X., 1644-1655; Alexander VII., 1655-1667; Clement IX.,
1667-1669; Clement X., 1670-1676; Innocent XI., 1676-1689;
Alexander VIII., 1689-1691; Innocent XII., 1691-1700] are of
very slight importance to the history of Europe. … The only
important questions in which the papacy was involved in the
latter half of the century were the schism of the Jansenists
and the relations with Louis XIV."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7;
period 8, chapters 1-3 (volume 4)._
_T. A. Trollope,
Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._
_A. Robertson,
Fra Paolo Sarpi._
PAPACY: A. D. 1621.
Election of Gregory XV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
Founding of the College of the Propaganda.
[Transcriber's note:
2022: "Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples."]
Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio, elected pope on the 9th of
February, 1621, taking the name of Gregory XV., "had always
shown the greatest zeal for the conversion of infidels and
heretics; this zeal inspired the design of founding the
College of the Propaganda (1622). The origin of the Propaganda
is properly to be traced to an edict of Gregory XIII., in
virtue of which a certain number of cardinals were charged
with the direction of missions to the East, and catechisms
were ordered to be printed in the less-known languages. But
the institution was neither firmly established nor provided
with the requisite funds. Gregory XV. gave it a constitution,
contributed the necessary funds from his private purse, and as
it met a want the existence of which was really felt and
acknowledged, its success was daily more and more brilliant.
{2462}
Who does not know what the Propaganda has done for
philological learning? But it chiefly labored, with admirable
grandeur of conception and energy, to fulfil its great
mission—the propagation of the Catholic faith—with the most
splendid results. Urban VIII., the immediate successor of
Gregory XV., completed the work by the addition of the
'Collegium de Propaganda Fide,' where youth are trained in the
study of all the foreign languages, to bear the name of Christ
to every nation on the globe."
_J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 7, chapter 7, section. 10 (volume 4)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1623.
Election of Urban VIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1623-1626.
The Valtelline War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
PAPACY: A. D. 1644-1667.
Pontificates of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.
Growth of Nepotism.
Sixtus V. had "invented a system of nepotism which was so
actively followed up by his successors, that even a short
reign provided the means of accumulating a brilliant fortune.
That pontiff raised one nephew to the rank of cardinal, with a
share of the public business and an ecclesiastical income of a
hundred thousand crowns. Another he created a marquess, with
large estates in the Neapolitan territory. The house of
Ferretti thus founded, long maintained a high position, and
was frequently represented in the College of Cardinals. The
Aldobrandini, founded in like manner by Clement VIII., the
Borghesi by Paul V., the Ludovisi by Gregory XV., and the
Barberini by Urban VIII., now vied in rank and opulence with
the ancient Roman houses of Colonna and Orsini, who boasted
that for centuries no peace had been concluded in Christendom
in which they were not expressly included. On the death of
Urban VIII. (29th July 1644) the Barberini commanded the votes
of eight-and-forty cardinals, the most powerful faction ever
seen in the conclave. Still, the other papal families were
able to resist their dictation, and the struggle terminated in
the election of Cardinal Pamfili, who took the name of
Innocent X. During the interval of three months, the city was
abandoned to complete lawlessness; assassinations in the
streets were frequent; no private house was safe without a
military guard, and a whole army of soldiers found occupation
in protecting the property of their employers. This was then
the usual state of things during an interregnum. Innocent X.,
though seventy-two years of age at his election, was full of
energy. He restrained the disorders in the city. … Innocent
brought the Barberini to strict account for malpractices under
his predecessor, and wrested from them large portions of their
ill-gotten gain. So far, however, from reforming the system
out of which these abuses sprung, his nepotism exhibited
itself in a form which scandalised even the Roman courtiers.
The pope brought his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia Maidalchina,
from Viterbo to Rome, and established her in a palace, where
she received the first visits of foreign ambassadors on their
arrival, gave magnificent entertainments, and dispensed for
her own benefit the public offices of the government. … Her
daughters were married into the noblest families. Her son,
having first been appointed the cardinal-nephew, soon after
renounced his orders, married, and became the secular-nephew.
The struggle for power between his mother and his wife divided
Rome into new factions, and the feud was enlarged by the
ambition of a more distant kinsman, whom Innocent appointed to
the vacant post of cardinal-nephew. The pontiff sank under a
deep cloud from the disorders in his family and the palace,
and when he died (5th January, 1655) the corpse laid three
days uncared for, till an old canon, who had been long
dismissed from his household, expended half-a-crown on its
interment. … Fabio Chigi, who came next as Alexander VIII.
[VII.] brought to the tottering chair a spotless reputation,
and abilities long proved in the service of the church. His
first act was to banish the scandalous widow; her son was
allowed to retain her palace and fortune. Beginning with the
loudest protestations against nepotism, now the best
established institution at Rome, in the phrase of the time,
the pope soon 'became a man.' The courtiers remonstrated on
his leaving his family to live a plain citizen's life at
Siena: it might involve the Holy See in a misunderstanding
with Tuscany. … The question was gravely proposed in
consistory, and the flood-gates being there authoritatively
unclosed, the waters of preferment flowed abundantly on all
who had the merit to be allied with Fabio Chigi. After
discharging this arduous duty, the pope relieved himself of
further attention to business, and spent his days in literary
leisure. His nephews, however, had less power than formerly,
from the growth of the constitutional principle. The
cardinals, in their different congregations, with the official
secretaries, aspired to the functions of responsible
advisers."
_G. Trevor,
Rome, from the Fall of the Western Empire,
pages 416-418._
PAPACY: A. D. 1646.
The Hostility of Mazarin and France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
PAPACY: A. D. 1653.
The first condemnation of Jansenism.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.
PAPACY: A. D. 1667.
Election of Clement IX.
PAPACY: A. D. 1670.
Election of Clement X.
PAPACY: A. D. 1676.
Election of Innocent XI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693.
Successful contest with Louis XIV. and the Gallican Church.
"It has always been the maxim of the French court, that the
papal power is to be restricted by means of the French clergy,
and that the clergy, on the other hand, are to be kept in due
limits by means of the papal power. But never did a prince
hold his clergy in more absolute command than Louis XIV. … The
prince of Condé declared it to be his opinion, that if it
pleased the king to go over to the Protestant church, the
clergy would be the first to follow him. And certainly the
clergy of France did support their king without scruple
against the pope. The declarations they published were from
year to year increasingly decisive in favour of the royal
authority. At length there assembled the convocation of 1682.
'It was summoned and dissolved,' remarks a Venetian
ambassador, 'at the convenience of the king's ministers, and
was guided by their suggestions.' The four articles drawn up
by this assembly have from that time been regarded as the
manifesto of the Gallican immunities. The first three repeat
assertions of principles laid down in earlier times; as, for
example, the independence of the secular power, as regarded
the spiritual authority; the superiority of councils over the
pope; and the inviolable character of the Gallican usages.
{2463}
But the fourth is more particularly remarkable, since it
imposes new limits even to the spiritual authority of the
pontiff. 'Even in questions of faith, the decision of the pope
is not incapable of amendment, so long as it is without the
assent of the church.' We see that the temporal power of the
kingdom received support from the spiritual authority, which
was in its turn upheld by the secular arm. The king is
declared free from the interference of the pope's temporal
authority; the clergy are exempted from submission to the
unlimited exercise of his spiritual power. It was the opinion
of contemporaries, that although France might remain within
the pale of the Catholic church, it yet stood on the
threshold, in readiness for stepping beyond it. The king
exalted the propositions above named into a kind of 'Articles
of Faith,' a symbolical book. All schools were to be regulated
in conformity with these precepts; and no man could attain to
a degree, either in the juridical or theological faculties,
who did not swear to maintain them. But the pope also was
still possessed of a weapon. The authors of this
declaration—the members of this assembly—were promoted and
preferred by the king before all other candidates for
episcopal offices; but Innocent refused to grant them
spiritual institution. They might enjoy the revenues of those
sees, but ordination they did not receive; nor could they
venture to exercise one spiritual act of the episcopate. These
complications were still further perplexed by the fact that
Louis XIV. at that moment resolved on that relentless
extirpation of the Huguenots, but too well known, and to which
he proceeded chiefly for the purpose of proving his own
perfect orthodoxy. He believed himself to be rendering a great
service to the church. It has indeed been also affirmed that
Innocent XI. was aware of his purpose and had approved it, but
this was not the fact. The Roman court would not now hear of
conversions effected by armed apostles. 'It was not of such
methods that Christ availed himself: men must be led to the
temple, not dragged into it.' New dissensions continually
arose. In the year 1687, the French ambassador entered Rome
with so imposing a retinue, certain squadrons of cavalry
forming part of it, that the right of asylum, which the
ambassadors claimed at that time, not only for their palace,
but also for the adjacent streets, could by no means have been
easily disputed with him, although the popes had solemnly
abolished the usage. With an armed force the ambassador braved
the pontiff in his own capital. 'They come with horses and
chariots,' said Innocent, 'but we will walk in the name of the
Lord.' He pronounced the censures of the church on the
ambassador; and the church of St. Louis, in which the latter
had attended a solemn high mass, was laid under interdict. The
king also then proceeded to extreme measures. He appealed to a
general council, took possession of Avignon, and caused the
nuncio to be shut up in St. Olon: it was even believed that he
had formed the design of creating for Harlai, archbishop of
Paris, who, if he had not suggested these proceedings, had
approved them, the appointment of patriarch of France. So far
had matters proceeded: the French ambassador in Rome
excommunicated; the papal nuncio in France detained by force;
thirty-five French bishops deprived of canonical institution;
a territory of the Holy See occupied by the king: it was, in
fact, the actual breaking out of schism; yet did Pope Innocent
refuse to yield a single step. If we ask to what he trusted
for support on this occasion, we perceive that it was not to
the effect of the ecclesiastical censures in France, nor to
the influence of his apostolic dignity, but rather, and above
all, to that universal resistance which had been aroused in
Europe against those enterprises of Louis XIV. that were
menacing the existence of its liberties. To this general
opposition the pope now also attached himself. … If the pope
had promoted the interests of Protestantism by his policy, the
Protestants on their side, by maintaining the balance of
Europe against the 'exorbitant Power,' also contributed to
compel the latter into compliance with the spiritual claims of
the papacy. It is true that when this result ensued, Innocent
XI. was no longer in existence; but the first French
ambassador who appeared in Rome after his death (10th of
August, 1689) renounced the right of asylum: the deportment of
the king was altered; he restored Avignon, and entered into
negotiations. … After the early death of Alexander VIII., the
French made all possible efforts to secure the choice of a
pontiff disposed to measures of peace and conciliation; a
purpose that was indeed effected by the elevation of Antonio
Pignatelli, who assumed the tiara with the name of Innocent
XII., on the 12th of July, 1691. … The negotiations continued
for two years. Innocent more than once rejected the formulas
proposed to him by the clergy of France, and they were, in
fact, compelled at length to declare that all measures
discussed and resolved on in the assembly of 1682 should be
considered as not having been discussed or resolved on:
'casting ourselves at the feet of your holiness, we profess
our unspeakable grief for what has been done.' It was not
until they had made this unreserved recantation that Innocent
accorded them canonical institution. Under these conditions
only was peace restored. Louis XIV. wrote to the pope that he
retracted his edict relating to the four articles. Thus we
perceive that the Roman see once more maintained its
prerogatives, even though opposed by the most powerful of
monarchs."
_L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 8, section 16 (volume 2)._
PAPACY:A. D. 1689.
Election of Alexander VIII.
PAPACY:A. D. 1691.
Election of Innocent XII.
PAPACY:A. D. 1700.
Election of Clement XI.
PAPACY:A. D. 1700-1790.
Effects of the War of the Spanish Succession.
Declining Powers.
The issue of the War of the Spanish Succession "will serve to
show us that when the Pope was not, as in his contest with
Louis XIV., favoured by political events, he could no longer
laugh to scorn the edicts of European potentates. Charles II.
of Spain, that wretched specimen of humanity, weak in body,
and still weaker in mind, haunted by superstitious terrors
which almost unsettled his reason, was now, in the year 1700,
about to descend to a premature grave. He was without male
issue, and was uncertain to whom he should bequeath the
splendid inheritance transmitted to him by his ancestors. The
Pope, Innocent XII., who was wholly in the interests of
France, urged him to bequeath Spain, with its dependencies, to
Philip, Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV., who claimed
through his grandmother, the eldest sister of Charles.
{2464}
He would thus prevent the execution of the partition treaty
concluded between France, England, and Holland, according to
which the Archduke Charles … was to have Spain, the Indies,
and the Netherlands, while France took the Milanese, or the
Province of Lorraine. The Archbishop of Toledo seconded the
exhortation of the Pope, and so worked on the superstitious
terrors of the dying monarch that he signed a will in favour
of the Duke of Anjou, which was the cause of lamentation, and
mourning, and woe, for twelve years, throughout Europe, from
the Vistula to the Atlantic Ocean. …
See SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The Duke of Marlborough's splendid victories of Blenheim and
Ramillies … placed the Emperor Joseph (1705-11), the brother
of the Archduke Charles, in possession of Germany and the
Spanish Netherlands and the victory of Prince Eugene before
Turin made him supreme in the north of Italy and the kingdom
of Naples
See
GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
The Pope, Clement XI., was now reduced to a most humiliating
position. Political events had occurred … which served to show
very plainly that the Pope, without a protector, could not, as
in former days, bid defiance to the monarchs of Europe. His
undutiful son, the Emperor, compelled him to resign part of
his territories as a security for his peaceful demeanour, and
to acknowledge the Archduke Charles, the Austrian claimant to
the Spanish throne. The peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713
[see UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714], which produced the
dismemberment of the monarchy, but left Philip in the peaceful
occupation of the throne of Spain, did indeed release him from
that obligation; but it did not restore him to the 'high and
palmy state' which he occupied before he was obliged to submit
to the Imperial arms. It inflicted a degradation upon him, for
it transferred to other sovereigns, without his consent, his
fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia. Now, also, it became manifest
that the Pope could no longer assert an indirect sovereignty
over the Italian States; for, notwithstanding his opposition,
it conferred a large extent of territory on the Duke of Savoy,
which has, in our day, been expanded into a kingdom under the
sceptre of Victor Emmanuel and his successor. We have a
further evidence of the decline of the Papacy in the change in
the relative position of the States of Europe as Papal and
anti-Papal during the eighteenth century, after the death of
Louis XIV. The Papal powers of Spain in the sixteenth century,
and of France, Spain, and Austria, in the latter half of the
seventeenth century, determined the policy of Europe. … On the
other hand, England, Prussia, and Russia became, in the
eighteenth century, the great leading powers in the world. …
The Pope, then, no longer stood at the head of those powers
which swayed the destinies of Europe. … The Papacy, from the
death of Louis XIV. till the time of the French Revolution,
led a very quiet and obscure life. It had no part in any of
the great events which during the eighteenth century were
agitating Europe, and gained no spiritual or political
victories."
_A. R. Pennington,
Epochs of the Papacy,
chapter 10._
PAPACY: A. D. 1713.
The Bull Unigenitus and the Christian doctrines it condemned.
See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.
PAPACY: A. D. 1721.
Election of Innocent XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1724.
Election of Benedict XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1730.
Election of Clement XII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1740.
Election of Benedict XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1758.
Election of Clement XIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1765-1769.
Defense of the Jesuits, on their expulsion from France,
Spain, Parma, Venice, Modena and Bavaria.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
PAPACY: A. D. 1769.
Election of Clement XIV.
PAPACY: A. D. 1773.
Suppression of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
PAPACY: A. D. 1775.
Election of Pius VI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.
Founding of the Roman Episcopate
in the United States of America.
In 1789, the first episcopal see of the Roman Catholic Church
in the United States was founded, at Baltimore, by a bull of
Pope Pius VI., which appointed Father John Carroll to be its
bishop. In 1810, Bishop Carroll "was raised to the dignity of
Archbishop, and four suffragan dioceses were created, with
their respective sees at Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and
Bardstown, in Kentucky."
_J. A. Russell,
The Catholic Church in the United States
(History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore,
pages 16-18)._
PAPACY: A. D. 1790-1791.
Revolution at Avignon.
Reunion of the Province with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.
PAPACY: A. D. 1796.
First extortions of Bonaparte from the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
PAPACY: A. D. 1797.
Treaty of Tolentino.
Papal territory taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadane and Cisalpine Republics.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
PAPACY: A. D. 1797-1798.
French occupation of Rome.
Formation of the Roman Republic.
Removal of the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).
PAPACY: A. D. 1800.
Election of Pius VII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1802.
The Concordat with Napoleon.
Its Ultramontane influence.
See FRANCE A. D. 1801-1804.
PAPACY: A. D. 1804.
Journey of the Pope to Paris for the coronation of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
Conflict of Pius VII. with Napoleon.
French seizure of Rome and the Papal States.
Captivity of the Pope at Savona and Fontainebleau.
The Concordat of 1813 and its retraction.
Napoleon "had long been quarrelling with Pius VII., to make a
tool of whom he had imposed the concordat on France. The Pope
resisted, as the Emperor might have expected, and, not
obtaining the price of his compliance, hindered the latter's
plans in every way that he could. He resisted as head of the
Church and as temporal sovereign of Rome, refusing to close
his dominions either to the English or to Neapolitan refugees
of the Bourbon party. Napoleon would not allow the Pope to act
as a monarch independent of the Empire, but insisted that he
was amenable to the Emperor, as temporal prince, just as his
predecessors were amenable to Charlemagne. They could not
agree, and Napoleon, losing patience, took military possession
of Rome and the Roman State."
_H. Martin,
Popular History of France, since 1789,
volume 2, chapter 12._
{2465}
In February, 1808, "the French troops, who had already taken
possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of the
resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
dispossessed the papal troops. Two months afterwards, an
imperial decree of Napoleon severed the provinces of Ancona,
Urbino, Macerata, and Camerino, which had formed part of the
ecclesiastical estates, under the gift of Charlemagne, for
nearly a thousand years, and annexed them to the kingdom of
Italy. The reason assigned for this spoliation was, 'That the
actual sovereign of Rome has constantly declined to declare
war against the English, and to coalesce with the Kings of
Italy and Naples for the defence of the Italian peninsula. The
interests of these two kingdoms, as well as of the armies of
Naples and Italy, require that their communications should not
be interrupted by a hostile power.'"
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 51 (volume 11)._
"The pope protested in vain against such violence. Napoleon
paid no attention. … He confiscated the wealth of the
cardinals who did not return to the place of their birth. He
disarmed nearly all the guards of the Holy Father—the nobles
of this guard were imprisoned. Finally, Miollis [the French
commander] had Cardinal Gabrielle, pro-Secretary of State,
carried off, and put seals upon his papers. On May 17, 1809, a
decree was issued by Napoleon, dated from Vienna, proclaiming
the union (in his quality of successor to Charlemagne) of the
States of the pope with the French Empire, ordaining that the
city of Rome should be a free and imperial city; that the pope
should continue to have his seat there, and that he should
enjoy a revenue of 2,000,000 francs. On June 10, he had this
decree promulgated at Rome. On this same June 10, the pope
protested against all these spoliations, refused all pensions,
and recapitulating all the outrages of which he had cause to
complain, issued the famous and imprudent bull of
excommunication against the authors, favourers, and executors
of the acts of violence against him and the Holy See, but
without naming anyone. Napoleon was incensed at it, and on the
first impulse he wrote to the bishops of France a letter in
which he spoke in almost revolutionary terms 'of him who
wished,' said he, 'to make dependent upon a perishable
temporal power the eternal interest of consciences, and that
of all spiritual affairs.' On the 6th of July, 1809, Pius
VII., taken from Rome, after he had been asked if he would
renounce the temporal sovereignty of Rome and of the States of
the Church, was conducted by General Radet as far as Savone,
where he arrived alone, August 10, the cardinals having all
been previously transported to Paris. And to complete the
spoliation of the pope, Napoleon issued on the 17th of
February, 1810, a senatus-consultum which bestowed upon the
eldest son of the emperor the title of King of Rome, and even
ordained that the emperor should be consecrated a second time
at Rome, in the first ten years of his reign. It was while
oppressed, captive and deprived of all council, that the pope
refused the bulls to all the bishops named by the emperor, and
then it was that all the discussions relative to the proper
measures to put an end to the viduity of the churches were
commenced. … The year 1810, far from bringing any alleviation
to the situation of the pope and giving him, according to the
wishes and prayers of the ecclesiastic commission, a little
more liberty, aggravated, on the contrary, this situation, and
rendered his captivity harder. In effect, on February 17, 1810,
appeared the senatus-consultum pronouncing the union of the
Roman States with the French Empire; the independence of the
imperial throne of all authority on earth, and annulling the
temporal existence of the popes. This senatus-consultum
assured a pension to the pope, but it ordained also that the
pope should take oath to do nothing in opposition to the four
articles of 1682. … The pope must have consoled himself, …
even to rejoicing, that they made the insulting pension they
offered him depend upon the taking of such an oath, and it is
that which furnished him with a reply so nobly apostolic: that
he had no need of this pension, and that he would live on the
charity of the faithful. … The rigorous treatment to which the
Holy Father was subjected at Savona was continued during the
winter of 1811-1812, and in the following spring. At this
time, it seems there was some fear, on the appearance of an
English squadron, that it might carry off the pope; and the
emperor gave the order to transfer him to Fontainebleau. This
unhappy old man left Savona, June 10, and was forced to travel
day and night. He fell quite ill at the hospice of Mont Cenis;
but they forced him none the less to continue his journey.
They had compelled him to wear such clothes … as not to betray
who he was on the way they had to follow. They took great care
also to conceal his journey from the public, and the secret
was so profoundly kept, that on arriving at Fontainebleau,
June 19, the concierge, who had not been, advised of his
arrival, and who had made no preparation, was obliged to
receive him in his own lodgings. The Holy Father was a long
time before recovering from the fatigue of this painful
journey, and from the needlessly rigorous treatment to which
they had subjected him. The cardinals not disgraced by
Napoleon, who were in Paris, as well as the Archbishop of
Tours, the Bishop of Nantes, the Bishop of Evreux, and the
Bishop of Treves, were ordered to go and see the pope. … The
Russian campaign, marked by so many disasters, was getting to
a close. The emperor on his return to Paris, December 18,
1812, still cherished chimerical hopes, and was meditating
without doubt, more gigantic projects. Before carrying them
out, he wished to take up again the affairs of the Church,
either because he repented not having finished with them at
Savona, or because he had the fancy to prove that he could do
more in a two hours' tête-à–tête with the pope, than had been
done by the council, its commissions, and its most able
negotiators. He had beforehand, however, taken measures which
were to facilitate his personal negotiation. The Holy Father
had been surrounded for several months by cardinals and
prelates, who, either from conviction or from submission to
the emperor, depicted the Church as having arrived at a state
of anarchy which put its existence in peril. They repeated
incessantly to the pope, that if he did not get reconciled
with the emperor and secure the aid of his power to arrest the
evil, schism would be inevitable. Finally, the Sovereign
pontiff overwhelmed by age, by infirmities, by the anxiety and
cares with which his mind was worried, found himself well
prepared for the scene Napoleon had planned to play, and which
was to assure him what he believed to be a success.
{2466}
On January 19, 1813, the emperor, accompanied by the Empress
Marie Louise, entered the apartment of the Holy Father
unexpectedly, rushed to him and embraced him with effusion.
Pius VII., surprised and affected, allowed himself to be
induced, after a few explanations, to give his approbation to
the propositions that were imposed, rather than submitted to
him. They were drawn up in eleven articles, which were not yet
a compact, but which were to serve as the basis of a new act.
On January 24, the emperor and the pope affixed their
signatures to this strange paper, which was lacking in the
usual diplomatic forms, since they were two sovereigns who had
treated directly together. It was said in these articles, that
the pope would exercise the pontificate in France, and in
Italy;—that his ambassadors and those in authority near him,
should enjoy all diplomatic privileges;—that such of his
domains which were not disposed of should be free from taxes,
and that those which were transferred should be replaced by an
income of 2,000,000 francs;—that the pope should nominate,
whether in France or in Italy, to episcopal sees which should
be subsequently fixed; that the suburban sees should be
re-established, and depend on the nomination of the pope, and
that the unsold lands of these sees should be restored; that
the pope should give bishoprics 'in partibus' to the Roman
bishops absent from their diocese by force of circumstances,
and that he should serve them a pension equal to their former
revenue, until such time as they should be appointed to vacant
sees; that the emperor and the pope should agree in opportune
time as to the reduction to be made if it took place, in the
bishoprics of Tuscany and of the country about Geneva, as well
as to the institution of bishoprics in Holland, and in the
Hanseatic departments; that the propaganda, the confessional,
and the archives should be established in the place of sojourn
of the Holy Father; finally, that His Imperial Majesty
bestowed his good graces upon the cardinals, bishops, priests,
and laymen, who had incurred his displeasure in connection
with actual events. … The news of the signing of the treaty
occasioned great joy among the people, but it appears that
that of the pope was of short duration. The sacrifices he had
been led to make were hardly consummated, than he experienced
bitter grief; this could but be increased in proportion as the
exiled and imprisoned cardinals, Consalvi, Pacca, di Pietro,
on obtaining their liberty, received also the authorization to
repair to Fontainebleau. What passed then between the Holy
Father and these cardinals I do not pretend to know; but it
must be that Napoleon had been warned by some symptoms of what
was about to happen; for, in spite of the agreement he had
made with the pope to consider the eleven articles only as
preliminaries which were not to be published, he decided
nevertheless to make them the object of a message that the
arch-chancellor was charged to submit to the senate. This
premature publicity given to an act which the pope so strongly
regretted having signed must have hastened his retractation
which he addressed to the emperor by a brief, on March 24,
1813. … This time, the emperor, although greatly irritated by
the retractation, believed it was to his interest not to make
any noise about it, and decided to take outwardly no notice of
it. He had two decrees published: one of February 13, and the
other of March 25, 1813. By the first, the new Concordat of
January 25 was declared state law; by the second, he declared
it obligatory upon archbishops, bishops, and chapters, and
ordered, according to Article IV. of this Concordat that the
archbishops should confirm the nominated bishops, and in case
of refusal, ordained that they should be summoned before the
tribunals. He restricted anew the liberty that had been given
momentarily to the Holy Father, and Cardinal di Pietro
returned to exile. Thereupon, Napoleon started, soon after,
for that campaign of 1813 in Germany, the prelude to that
which was to lead to his downfall. The decrees issued 'ab
irato' were not executed, and during the vicissitudes of the
campaign of 1813, the imperial government attempted several
times to renew with the pope negotiations which failed.
Matters dragged along thus, and no one could foresee any issue
when, on January 23, 1814, it was suddenly learned that the
pope had left Fontainebleau that very day, and returned to
Rome. … Murat, who had abandoned the cause of the emperor, and
who … had treated with the coalition, was then occupying the
States of the Church, and it is evident that Napoleon in his
indignation against Murat, preferred to allow the pope to
re-enter his States, to seeing them in the hands of his
brother-in-law. While Pius VII. was en route and the emperor
was fighting in Champagne, a decree of March 10, 1814,
announced that the pope was taking possession again of the
part of his States which formed the departments of Rome and
Trasmania. The lion, although vanquished, would not yet let go
all the prey he hoped surely to retake. … The pope arrived on
April 30, at Cesena, on May 12, at Ancona, and made his solemn
entry into Rome on May 24, 1814."
_Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 6 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_D. Silvagni,
Rome: its Princes, Priests and People,
chapters 35-39 (volume 2)._
_C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 5-8._
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapters 6 and 11-12._
_Selections from the Letters and Despatches of Napoleon,
Captain Bingham,
volumes 2-3._
_Memoirs of Napoleon dictated at St. Helena,
volume 5 (History Miscellany, volume l)._
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 13 and 16._
PAPACY: A. D. 1814.
Restoration of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761)-1871.
PAPACY: A. D. 1815.
Restoration of the Papal States.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
PAPACY: A. D. 1823.
Election of Leo XII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1829.
Election of Pius VIII.
PAPACY: A. D. 1831.
Election of Gregory XVI.
PAPACY: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
PAPACY: A. D. 1846-1849.
Election of Pius IX.
His liberal reforms.
Revolution at Rome.
The Pope's flight.
His restoration by the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
{2467}
PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate in England.
"The Reformation had deprived the Church of Rome of an
official home on English soil. … But a few people had remained
faithful to the Church of their forefathers, and a handful of
priests had braved the risks attendant on the discharge of
their duties to it. Rome, moreover, succeeded in maintaining
some sort of organisation in England. In the first instance
her Church was placed under an arch-priest. From 1623 to 1688
it was placed under a Vicar Apostolic, that is a Bishop,
nominally appointed to some foreign see, with a brief enabling
him to discharge episcopal duties in Great Britain. This
policy was not very successful. Smith, the second Vicar
Apostolic, was banished in 1629, and, though he lived till
1655, never returned to England. The Pope did not venture on
appointing a successor to him for thirty years. … On the eve
of the Revolution [in 1688] he divided England into four
Vicariates. This arrangement endured till 1840. In that year
Gregory XVI. doubled the vicariates, and appointed eight
Vicars Apostolic. The Roman Church is a cautious but
persistent suitor. She had made a fresh advance; she was
awaiting a fresh opportunity. The eight Vicars Apostolic asked
the Pope to promote the efficiency of their Church by
restoring the hierarchy. The time seemed ripe for the change.
… The Pope prepared Apostolic letters, distributing the eight
vicariates into eight bishoprics. … The Revolution, occurring
immediately afterwards, gave the Pope other things to think
about than the re-establishment of the English hierarchy. For
two years nothing more was heard of the conversion of
vicariates into bishoprics. But the scheme had not been
abandoned; and, in the autumn of 1850, the Pope, restored to
the Vatican by French bayonets, issued a brief for
re–establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England.'
England and Wales were divided into twelve sees. One of them,
Westminster, was made into an archbishopric; and Wiseman, an
Irishman by extraction, who had been Vicar Apostolic of the
London District, and Bishop of Melipotamus, was promoted to
it. Shortly afterwards a new distinction was conferred upon
him, and the new archbishop was made a cardinal. The
publication of the brief created a ferment in England. The
effect of the Pope's language was increased by a pastoral from
the new archbishop, in which he talked of governing, and
continuing to govern, his see with episcopal jurisdiction; and
by the declaration of an eminent convert that the people of
England, who for so many years have been separated from the
see of Rome, are about of their own free will to be added to
the Holy Church. For the moment, High Churchmen and Low
Churchmen forgot their differences in their eagerness to
punish a usurpation of what was called the Queen's
prerogative. The Prime Minister, instead of attempting to
moderate the tempest, added violence to the storm by
denouncing, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham, the late
aggression of the Pope as 'insolent and insidious, …
inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, with the rights of
our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of
the nation.' … Amidst the excitement which was thus
occasioned, Parliament met. The Speech from the Throne alluded
to the strong feelings excited by 'the recent assumption of
ecclesiastical titles conferred by a foreign Power.' … It
declared that a measure would be introduced into Parliament to
maintain 'under God's blessing, the religious liberty which is
so justly prized by the people.' It hardly required such words
as these to fan the spreading flame. In the debate on the
Address, hardly any notice was taken of any subject except the
'triple tyrant's insolent pretension.' On the first Friday in
the session, Russell introduced a measure forbidding the
assumption of territorial titles by the priests and prelates
of the Roman Catholic Church; declaring all gifts made to
them, and all acts done by them, under those titles null and
void; and forfeiting to the Crown all property bequeathed to
them." Action on the Bill was interrupted in the House by a
Ministerial crisis, which ended, however, in the return of
Lord John Russell and his colleagues to the administration;
but the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, when it was again brought
forward, was greatly changed. In its amended shape the bill
merely made it illegal for Roman Catholic prelates to assume
territorial titles. According to the criticism of one of the
Conservatives, "the original bill … was milk and water; by
some chemical process the Government had extracted all the
milk." After much debate the emasculated bill became a law,
but it was never put into execution.
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 23 (volume 5)._
ALSO IN.:
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 20 (volume 2)._
_J. Stoughton,
Religion in England, 1800-1850,
volume 2, chapter 13._
PAPACY: A. D. 1854.
Promulgation of the Dogma of the
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
"The thought of defining dogmatically the belief of all ages
and all Catholic nations in the Immaculate Conception of the
Blessed Virgin dated back to the beginning of his [Pius IX.'s]
pontificate. By an encyclical letter dated from his exile at
Gaeta, he had asked the opinion of all the patriarchs,
primates, archbishops and bishops of the universe as to the
seasonableness of this definition. The holding of a general
council is attended with many embarrassments, and cannot be
freed from the intrigues and intervention of the so-called
Catholic powers. Pius IX. has initiated a new course. All,
even the most Gallican in ideas, acknowledge that a definition
in matters of faith by the pope, sustained by the episcopate,
is infallible. The rapid means of communication and
correspondence in modern times, the more direct intercourse of
the bishops with Rome, makes it easy now for the pope to hear
the well-considered, deliberate opinion of a great majority of
the bishops throughout the world. In this case the replies of
the bishops coming from all parts of the world show that the
universal Church, which has one God, one baptism, has also one
faith. As to the dogma there was no dissension, a few doubted
the expediency of making it an article of faith. These replies
determined the Holy Father to proceed to the great act, so
long demanded by [the] Catholic heart. … A number of bishops
were convoked to Rome for the 8th of December, 1854; a still
greater number hastened to the Eternal City. … That day the
bishops assembled in the Vatican to the number of 170, and
robed in white cape and mitre proceeded to the Sixtine Chapel,
where the Holy Father soon appeared in their midst." There,
after befitting ceremonies, the pontiff made formal
proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
Mary, in the following words: "By the authority of Jesus
Christ our Lord, of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
our own, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine
which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant
of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of
original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should
firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
{2468}
Wherefore, if any shall dare—which God avert—to think
otherwise than as it has been defined by us, let them know and
understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, that
they have suffered shipwreck of the faith, and have revolted
from the unity of the Church; and besides, by their own act,
they subject themselves to the penalties justly established,
if what they think they should dare to signify by word,
writing, or any other outward means.' … The next day the
sovereign pontiff assembled the sacred college and the bishops
in the great consistorial hall of the Vatican, and pronounced
the allocution which, subsequently published by all the
bishops, announced to the Catholic world the act of December
8th."
_A. de Montor,
The Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
volume 2, pages 924-926._
PAPACY: A. D. 1860-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of Papal States in the new Kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
The Encyclical and the Syllabus.
"On the 8th of December 1864, Pius IX. issued his Encyclical
[a circular letter addressed by the Pope to all the
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Church
throughout the world] 'Quanta cura', accompanied by the
Syllabus, or systematically arranged collection of errors,
condemned from time to time, by himself and his predecessors.
The Syllabus comprises 80 erroneous propositions. These are
set forth under 10 distinct heads: viz.
1. Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism;
2. Moderated Rationalism;
3. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism;
4. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies,
Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies;
5. Errors concerning the Church and her rights;
6. Errors concerning Civil Society, as well in itself
as in its relations with the Church;
7. Errors concerning Natural and Christian Ethics;
8. Errors concerning Christian marriage;
9. Errors concerning the Civil Princedom of the Roman Pontiff;
10. Errors in relation with Modern Liberalism.
Immediately under each, error are given the two initial words,
and the date, of the particular Papal Allocution, Encyclical,
Letter Apostolic, or Epistle, in which it is condemned.
Whilst, on the one hand, the publication of the Encyclical and
Syllabus was hailed by many as the greatest act of the
pontificate of Pius IX., on the other hand, their appearance
excited the angry feelings, and intensified the hostility, of
the enemies of the Church."
_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 33._
The following is a translation of the text of the Encyclical,
followed by that of the Syllabus or Catalogue of Errors:
To our venerable brethren all the Patriarchs, Primates,
Archbishops, and Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See,
we, Pius IX., Pope, send greeting, and our apostolic
blessing:
You know, venerable brethren, with what care and what pastoral
vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors—fulfilling the
charge intrusted to them by our Lord Jesus Christ himself in
the person of the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles —have
unfailingly observed their duty in providing food for the
sheep and the lambs, in assiduously nourishing the flock of
the Lord with the words of faith, in imbuing them with
salutary doctrine, and in turning them away from poisoned
pastures; all this is known to you, and you have appreciated
it. And certainly our predecessors, in affirming and in
vindicating the august Catholic faith, truth, and justice,
were never animated in their care for the salvation of souls
by a more earnest desire than that of extinguishing and
condemning by their letters and their constitutions all the
heresies and errors which, as enemies of our divine faith, of
the doctrines of the Catholic Church, of the purity of morals,
and of the eternal salvation of man, have frequently excited
serious storms, and precipitated civil and Christian society
into the most deplorable misfortunes. For this reason our
predecessors have opposed themselves with vigorous energy to
the criminal enterprise of those wicked men, who, spreading
their disturbing opinions like the waves of a raging sea, and
promising liberty when they are slaves to corruption, endeavor
by their pernicious writings to overturn the foundations of
the Christian Catholic religion and of civil society; to
destroy all virtue and justice; to deprave all minds and
hearts; to turn away simple minds, and especially those of
inexperienced youth, from the healthy discipline of morals; to
corrupt it miserably, to draw it into the meshes of error, and
finally to draw it from the bosom of the Catholic Church. But
as you are aware, venerable brethren, we had scarcely been
raised to the chair of St. Peter above our merits, by the
mysterious designs of Divine Providence, than seeing with the
most profound grief of our soul the horrible storm excited by
evil doctrines, and the very grave and deplorable injury
caused specially by so many errors to Christian people, in
accordance with the duty of our apostolic ministry, and
following in the glorious footsteps of our predecessors, we
raised our voice, and by the publication of several
encyclicals, consistorial letters, allocutions, and other
apostolic letters, we have condemned the principal errors of
our sad age, re-animated your utmost episcopal vigilance,
warned and exhorted upon various occasions all our dear
children in the Catholic Church to repel and absolutely avoid
the contagion of so horrible a plague. More especially in our
first encyclical of the 9th November, 1846, addressed to you,
and in our two allocutions of the 9th December, 1854, and the
9th June, 1862, to the consistories, we condemned the
monstrous opinions which particularly predominated in the
present day, to the great prejudice of souls and to the
detriment of civil society—doctrines which not only attack the
Catholic Church, her salutary instruction, and her venerable
rights, but also the natural, unalterable law inscribed by God
upon the heart of man—that of sound reason. But although we
have not hitherto omitted to proscribe and reprove the
principal errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic
Church, the safety of the souls which have been confided to
us, and the well-being of human society itself, absolutely
demand that we should again exercise our pastoral solicitude
to destroy new opinions which spring out of these same errors
as from so many sources.
{2469}
These false and perverse opinions are the more detestable as
they especially tend to shackle and turn aside the salutary
force that the Catholic Church, by the example of her Divine
author and his order, ought freely to exercise until the end
of time, not only with regard to each individual man, but with
regard to nations, peoples, and their rulers, and to destroy
that agreement and concord between the priesthood and the
government which have always existed for the happiness and
security of religious and civil society, For as you are well
aware, venerable brethren, there are a great number of men in
the present day who, applying to civil society the impious and
absurd principle of naturalism, as it is called, dare to teach
that the perfect right of public society and civil progress
absolutely require a condition of human society constituted
and governed without regard to all considerations of religion,
as if it had no existence, or, at least, without making any
distinction between true religion and heresy. And, contrary to
the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the church, and of the
fathers, they do not hesitate to affirm that the best
condition of society is that in which the power of the laity
is not compelled to inflict the penalties of law upon
violators of the Catholic religion unless required by
considerations of public safety. Actuated by an idea of social
government so absolutely false, they do not hesitate further
to propagate the erroneous opinion, very hurtful to the safety
of the Catholic Church and of souls, and termed "delirium" by
our predecessor, Gregory XVI., of excellent memory, namely:
"Liberty of conscience and of worship is the right of every
man—a right which ought to be proclaimed and established by
law in every well-constituted State, and that citizens are
entitled to make known and declare, with a liberty which
neither the ecclesiastical nor the civil authority can limit,
their convictions of whatever kind, either by word of mouth,
or through the press, or by other means." But in making these
rash assertions they do not reflect, they do not consider,
that they preach the liberty of perdition (St. Augustine,
Epistle 105, Al. 166), and that "if it is always free to human
conviction to discuss, men will never be wanting who dare to
struggle against the truth and to rely upon the loquacity of
human wisdom, when we know by the example of our Lord Jesus
Christ how faith and Christian sagacity ought to avoid this
culpable vanity." (St. Leon, Epistle 164, Al. 133, sec. 2,
Boll. Ed.) Since also religion has been banished from civil
government, since the doctrine and authority of divine
revelation have been repudiated, the idea intimately connected
therewith of justice and human right is obscured by darkness
and lost sight of, and in place of true justice and legitimate
right brute force is substituted, which has permitted some,
entirely oblivious of the plainest principles of sound reason,
to dare to proclaim "that the will of the people, manifested
by what is called public opinion or by other means,
constitutes a supreme law superior to all divine and human
right, and that accomplished facts in political affairs, by
the mere fact of their having been accomplished, have the
force of law." But who does not perfectly see and understand
that human society, released from the ties of religion and
true justice, can have no further object than to amass riches,
and can follow no other law in its actions than the
indomitable wickedness of a heart given up to pleasure and
interest? For this reason, also, these same men persecute with
so relentless a hatred the religious orders, who have deserved
so well of religion, civil society, and letters. They loudly
declare that the orders have no right to exist, and in so
doing make common cause with the falsehoods of the heretics.
For, as taught by our predecessor of illustrious memory, Pius
VI., "the abolition of religious houses injures the state of
public profession, and is contrary to the counsels of the
Gospel, injures a mode of life recommended by the church and
in conformity with the Apostolic doctrine, does wrong to the
celebrated founders whom we venerate upon the altar, and who
constituted these societies under the inspiration of God."
(Epistle to Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, March 10, 1791.) In
their impiety these same persons pretend that citizens and the
church should be deprived of the opportunity of openly
"receiving alms from Christian charity," and that the law
forbidding "servile labor on account of divine worship" upon
certain fixed days should be abrogated, upon the fallacious
pretext that this opportunity and this law are contrary to the
principles of political economy. Not content with eradicating
religion from public society, they desire further to banish it
from families and private life. Teaching and professing these
most fatal errors of Socialism and Communism, they declare
that "domestic society, or the entire family, derives its
right of existence solely from civil law, whence it is to be
concluded that from civil law descend all the rights of
parents over their children, and, above all, the right of
instructing and educating them." By such impious opinions and
machinations do these false spirits endeavor to eliminate the
salutary teaching and influences of the Catholic Church from
the instruction and education of youth, and to infect and
miserably deprave by their pernicious errors and their vices
the pliant minds of youth. All those who endeavor to trouble
sacred and public things, to destroy the good order of
society, and to annihilate all divine and human rights, have
always concentrated their criminal schemes, attention, and
efforts upon the manner in which they might above all deprave
and delude unthinking youth, as we have already shown. It is
upon the corruption of youth that they p]ace all their hopes.
Thus they never cease to attack the clergy, from whom have
descended to us in so authentic manner the most certain
records of history, and by whom such desirable benefit has
been bestowed in abundance upon Christian and civil society
and upon letters. They assail them in every shape, going so
far as to say of the clergy in general—"that being the enemies
of the useful sciences, of progress, and of civilization, they
ought to be deprived of the charge of, instructing and
educating youth." Others, taking up wicked errors many times
condemned, presume with notorious impudence to submit the
authority of the church and of this Apostolic See, conferred
upon it by God himself, to the judgment of civil authority,
and to deny all the rights of this same church and this see
with regard to exterior order.
{2470}
They do not blush to affirm that the laws of the church do not
bind the conscience if they are not promulgated by the civil
power; that the acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs
concerning religion and the church require the sanction and
approbation, or, at least, the assent, of the civil power; and
that the Apostolic constitutions condemning secret societies,
whether these exact, or do not exact, an oath of secrecy, and
branding with anathema their secretaries and promoters, have
no force in those regions of the world where these
associations are tolerated by the civil government. It is
likewise affirmed that the excommunications launched by the
Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs against those who
invade the possessions of the church and usurp its rights,
seek, in confounding the spiritual and temporal powers, to
attain solely a terrestrial object; that the church can decide
nothing which may bind the consciences of the faithful in a
temporal order of things; that the law of the church does not
demand that violations of sacred laws should be punished by
temporal penalties; and that it is in accordance with sacred
theology and the principles of public law to claim for the
civil government the property possessed by the churches, the
religious orders, and other pious establishments. And they
have no shame in avowing openly and publicly the thesis, the
principle of heretics from whom emanate so many errors and
perverse opinions. They say: "That the ecclesiastical power is
not of right divine, distinct and independent from the civil
power; and that no distinction, no independence of this kind
can be maintained without the church invading and usurping the
essential rights of the civil power." Neither can we pass over
in silence the audacity of those who, insulting sound
doctrines, assert that "the judgments and decrees of the Holy
See, whose object is declared to concern the general welfare
of the church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim
the acquaintance and obedience under pain of sin and loss of
the Catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of
faith and manners." How contrary is this doctrine to the
Catholic dogma of the full power divinely given to the
sovereign Pontiff by our Lord Jesus Christ, to guide, to
supervise, and govern the universal church, no one can fail to
see and understand clearly and evidently. Amid so great a
diversity of depraved opinions, we, remembering our apostolic
duty, and solicitous before all things for our most holy
religion, for sound doctrine, for the salvation of the souls
confided to us, and for the welfare of human society itself,
have considered the moment opportune to raise anew our
apostolic voice. And therefore do we condemn and proscribe
generally and particularly all the evil opinions and doctrines
specially mentioned in this letter, and we wish that they may
be held as rebuked, proscribed, and condemned by all the
children of the Catholic Church. But you know further,
venerable brothers, that in our time insulters of every truth
and of all justice, and violent enemies of our religion, have
spread abroad other impious doctrines by means of pestilent
books, pamphlets, and journals which, distributed over the
surface of the earth, deceive the people and wickedly lie. You
are not ignorant that in our day men are found who, animated
and excited by the spirit of Satan, have arrived at that
excess of impiety as not to fear to deny our Lord and Master
Jesus Christ, and to attack his divinity with scandalous
persistence. We cannot abstain from awarding you well-merited
eulogies, venerable brothers, for all the care and zeal with
which you have raised your episcopal voice against so great an
impiety.
_Catalogue of the Principal Errors of Our Time Pointed
Out in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and other
Apostolical Letters of Pope Pius IX._
I.–PANTHEISM, NATURALISM, AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM.
1. There is no divine power, supreme being, wisdom, and
providence distinct from the universality of things, and God
is none other than the nature of things, and therefore
immutable. In effect, God is in man, and in the world, and all
things are God, and have the very substance of God. God is,
therefore, one and the same thing with the world, and thence
mind is confounded with matter, necessity with liberty of
action, true with false, good with evil, just with unjust.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
2. All action of God upon man and the world should be denied.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
3. Human reason, without any regard to God, is the sole
arbiter of true and false, good and evil; it is its own law in
itself, and suffices by its natural force for the care of the
welfare of men and nations.
(See Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1802.)
4. All the truths of religion are derived from the native
strength of human reason, whence reason is the principal rule
by which man can and must arrive at the knowledge of all
truths of every kind.
(See Encyclicals, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1840,
and "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1850,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to
the continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the
progress of human reason.
(See Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
6. Christian faith is in opposition to human reason, and
divine revelation is not only useless but even injurious to
the perfection of man.
(See Encyclical "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846,
and Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
7. The prophecies and miracles told and narrated in the sacred
books are the fables of poets, and the mysteries of the
Christian faith the sum of philosophical investigations. The
books of the two Testaments contain fabulous fictions, and
Jesus Christ is himself a myth.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM.
8. As human reason is rendered equal to religion itself,
theological matters must be treated as philosophical matters.
(Allocution, "Singulari quidem perfusi.")
9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indistinctly
the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason,
instructed solely by history, is able by its natural strength
and principles to arrive at a comprehension of even the most
abstract dogmas from the moment when they have been proposed
as objective.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 4, 1862.
Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
{2471}
10. As the philosopher is one thing and philosophy is another,
it is the right and duty of the former to submit himself to
the authority of which he shall have recognized the truth; but
philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to authority.
(Letters to Archbishop Frising, "Gravissimus,"
December 11, 1862;
and, "Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)
11. The church not only ought in no way to concern herself
with philosophy, but ought further herself to tolerate the
errors of philosophy, leaving to it the care of their
correction.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman
congregation fetter the free progress of science.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, December 11, 1862.)
13. The methods and principles by which the old scholastic
doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the
demands of the age and the progress of science.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
14. Philosophy must be studied without taking any account of
supernatural revelation.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
N. B.—To the rationalistic system are due in great part the
errors of Antony Gunther, condemned in the letter to the
Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne "Eximiam tuam," June 15, 1847,
and in that to the Bishop of Breslau, "Dolore haud mediocri,"
April 30, 1860.
III.—INDIFFERENTISM, TOLERATION.
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he
shall believe true, guided by the light of reason.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
16. Men who have embraced any religion may find and obtain
eternal salvation.
(Encyclical, '"Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Ubi primum," December 17, 1847;
Encyclical, "Singulari quidem," March 17, 1856.)
17. At least the eternal salvation may be hoped for of all who
have never been in the true church of Christ.
(Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1865;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 17, 1863.)
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the
same true religion in which it is possible to be equally
pleasing to God, as in the Catholic church.
(Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849.)
IV.—SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CLANDESTINE SOCIETIES,
BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES.
Pests of this description have been frequently
rebuked in the severest terms in the
Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus, quantisque," August 20, 1849;
Encyclical, "Nescitis et vobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Allocution, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur mœrore," August 10, 1863.
V.-ERRORS RESPECTING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS.
19. The church is not a true and perfect entirely free
association; she does not rest upon the peculiar and perpetual
rights conferred upon her by her divine founder; but it
appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights
and limits within which the church may exercise authority.
(Allocutions, "Singulari quidem," December 9, 1854;
"Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Maxima quidem," June, 1862.)
20. The ecclesiastical power must not exercise its authority
without the toleration and assent of the civil government.
(Allocution, "Meminit unusquisque," September 30, 1851.)
21. The church has not the power of disputing dogmatically
that the religion of the Catholic church is the only true
religion.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
22. The obligation which binds Catholic masters and writers
does not apply to matters proposed for universal belief as
articles of faith by the infallible judgment of the church.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising, "Tuas libenter,"
December 21, 1863.)
23. The church has not the power of availing herself of force,
or any direct or indirect temporal power.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
24. The Roman pontiffs and œcumenical councils have exceeded
the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes,
and have even committed errors in defining matter relating to
dogma and morals.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
25. In addition to the authority inherent in the episcopate,
further temporal power is granted to it by the civil power,
either expressly or tacitly, but on that account also
revocable by the civil power whenever it pleases.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
26. The church has not the natural and legitimate right of
acquisition and possession.
("Nunquam," December 18, 1856;
Encyclical, "Incredibili," September 17, 1862.)
27. The ministers of the church and the Roman pontiff ought to
be absolutely excluded from all charge and dominion over
temporal affairs.
(Allocution, "Maximum quidem," June 9, 1862.)
28. Bishops have not the right of promulgating their
apostolical letters without the sanction of the government.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
29. Spiritual graces granted by the Roman pontiff must be
considered null unless they have been requested by the civil
government.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
30. The immunity of the church and of ecclesiastical persons
derives its origin from civil law.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
31. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for temporal lawsuits, whether
civil or criminal, of the clergy, should be abolished, even
without the consent and against the desire of the Holy See.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
32. The personal immunity exonerating the clergy from military
law may be abrogated without violation either of natural right
or of equity. This abrogation is called for by civil progress,
especially in a society modelled upon principles of liberal
government.
(Letter to Bishop Montisregal,
"Singularis nobilisque," September 29, 1864.)
33. It does not appertain to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by
any right, and inherent to its essence, to direct doctrine in
matters of theology.
(Letter to Archbishop Frising,
"Tuas libenter," December 21, 1863.)
34. The doctrine of those who compare the sovereign pontiff to
a free sovereign acting in the universal church is a doctrine
which prevailed in the middle ages.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
{2472}
35. There is no obstacle to the sentence of a general council,
or the act of all the nation transferring the pontifical
sovereign from the bishopric and city of Rome to some other
bishopric in another city.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of
subsequent discussion, and the civil power can require that
matters shall remain as they are.
(Apostolic Letter, "Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
37. National churches can be established without, and
separated from, the Roman pontiff.
(Allocution, "Multis gravibus," December 17, 1860;
"Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
38. Many Roman pontiffs have lent themselves to the division
of the church in Eastern and Western churches.
(Apostolic Letter, " Ad Apostolicas," August 22, 1851.)
VI.—ERRORS OF CIVIL SOCIETY, AS MUCH IN THEMSELVES
AS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE CHURCH.
39. The state of a republic, as being the origin and source of
all rights, imposes itself by its rights, which is not
circumscribed by any limit.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
40. The doctrine of the Catholic church is opposed to the laws
and interests of society.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
41. The civil government, even when exercised by a heretic
sovereign, possesses an indirect and negative power over
religious affairs.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
42. In a legal conflict between the two powers, civil law
ought to prevail.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
43. The lay power has the authority to destroy, declare, and
render null solemn conventions or concordats relating to the
use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without
the consent of the priesthood, and even against its will.
(Allocution, "In consistoriali," November 1, 1850;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters regarding
religion, morality, and spiritual government, whence it has
control over the instructions for the guidance of consciences
issued, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the
church. Further, it possesses full power in the matter of
administering the divine sacraments and the necessary
arrangements for their reception.
("In consistoriali," November 1, 1858;
Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
45. The entire direction of public schools in which the youth
of Christian States are educated, save an exception in the
case of Episcopal seminaries, may and must appertain to the
civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority
shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the
discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the
taking of degrees, or the choice and approval of teachers.
(Allocution, "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850;
"Quibus luctuosissimis," September 5, 1861.)
46. Further, even in clerical seminaries the mode of study
must be submitted to the civil authority.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
47. The most advantageous conditions of civil society require
that popular schools open without distinction to all children
of the people, and public establishments destined to teach
young people letters and good discipline, and to impart to
them education, should be freed from all ecclesiastical
authority and interference, and should be fully subjected to
the civil and political power for the teaching of masters and
opinions common to the times.
(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)
48. This manner of instructing youth, which consists in
separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of
the church, and in teaching it above all a knowledge of
natural things and the objects of social life, may be
perfectly approved by Catholics.
(Letter to Archbishop of Friburg,
"Quum none sine," July 14, 1864.)
49. The civil power is entitled to prevent ministers of
religion and the faithful from communicating freely and
mutually with the Roman Pontiff.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
50. The lay authority possesses of itself the right of
presenting bishops, and may require of them that they take
possession of their diocese before having received canonical
institution and the Apostolical letter of the Holy See.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
51. Further, the lay authority has the right of deposing
bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not forced to
obey the Roman Pontiff in matters affecting the filling of
sees and the institution of bishops.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum.")
52. The government has a right to alter a period fixed by the
church for the accomplishment of the religious duties of both
sexes, and may enjoin upon all religious establishments to
admit nobody to take solemn vows without permission.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
53. Laws respecting the protection, rights, and functions of
religious establishments must be abrogated; further, the civil
government may lend its assistance to all who desire to quit a
religious life, and break their vows. The government may also
deprive religious establishments of the right of patronage to
collegiate churches and simple benefices, and submit their
goods to civil competence and administration.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862;
"Probe memineritis, " January 22, 1885;
and "Quum sæpe, " July 26, 1858.)
54. Kings and princes are not only free from the jurisdiction
of the church, but are superior to the church even in
litigious questions of jurisdiction
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
55. The church must be separated from the State and the State
from the church.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1862.)
VII.—ERRORS IN NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN MORALS.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the Divine sanction,
and there is no necessity that human laws should be
conformable to the laws of nature and receive their sanction
from God.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
57. Knowledge of philosophical and moral things and civil laws
may and must be free from Divine and ecclesiastical authority.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
58. No other forces are recognized than those which reside in
matter, and which, contrary to all discipline and all decency
of morals, are summed up in the accumulation and increase of
riches by every possible means and in the satisfaction of
every pleasure.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
Encyclical, "Quanto conficiamur," August 10, 1863.)
{2473}
59. Right consists in material fact. All human duties are vain
words, and all human facts have the force of right.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
60. Authority is nothing but the sum of numbers and material
force.
(Allocution, "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.)
61. The happy injustice of a fact inflicts no injury upon the
sanctity of right.
(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
62. The principle of non-intervention must be proclaimed and
observed.
(Allocution, "Novos et ante," September 27, 1860.)
63. It is allowable to withdraw from obedience to legitimate
princes and to rise in insurrection against them.
(Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846;
Allocution, "Quisque vestrum," October 4, 1847;
Encyclical., "Noscitis et nobiscum," December 8, 1849;
Apostolic Letter, "Cum Catholica," March 25, 1860.)
64. The violation of a solemn oath, even every guilty and
shameful action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only
undeserving rebuke, but is even allowable and worthy of the
highest praise when done for the love of country.
(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
VIII.—ERRORS AS TO CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.
65. It is not admissible, rationally, that Christ has raised
marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
66. The sacrament of marriage is only an adjunct of the
contract, from which it is separable, and the sacrament itself
only consists in the nuptial benediction.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
67. By the law of nature the marriage tie is not indissoluble,
and in many cases divorce, properly so called, may be
pronounced by the civil authority.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852;
Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
68. The church has not the power of pronouncing upon the
impediments to marriage. This belongs to civil society, which
can remove the existing hindrances.
(Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.)
69. It is only more recently that the church has begun to
pronounce upon invalidating obstacles, availing herself, not
of her own right, but of a right borrowed from the civil
power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which invoke anathema
against those who deny the church the right of pronouncing
upon invalidating obstacles, are not dogmatic, and must be
considered as emanating from borrowed power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
71. The form of the said council, under the penalty of
nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has
appointed another form, and desires that this new form is to
be used in marriage.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
72. Boniface VIII. is the first who declared that the vow of
chastity pronounced at ordination annuls nuptials.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.)
73. A civil contract may very well, among Christians, take the
place of true marriage, and it is false, either that the
marriage contract between Christians must always be a
sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament does
not exist.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851.;
Letter to King of Sardinia, September 9, 1852;
Allocutions, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852;
"Multis gravibusque," December 17, 1860.)
74. Matrimonial or nuptial causes belong by their nature to
civil jurisdiction.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1851;
Allocution, " Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
N. B.—Two other errors are still current upon the abolition of
the celibacy of priests and the preference due to the state of
marriage over that of virginity. These have been refuted—the
first in Encyclical, "Qui pluribus," November 9, 1846; the
second in Apostolic Letter, "Multiplices inter," June 10,
1851.
IX.—ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are not
agreed upon the compatibility of the temporal with the
spiritual power.
(Apostolic Letter, August 22, 1852.)
76. The cessation of the temporal power, upon which the
Apostolic See is based, would contribute to the happiness and
liberty of the church.
(Allocution, "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.)
N. B.—Besides these errors explicitly pointed out, still more,
and those numerous, are rebuked by the certain doctrine which
all Catholics are bound to respect touching the civil
government of the Sovereign Pontiff. These doctrines are
abundantly explained in Allocutions,
"Quantis quantumque," April 20, 1859,
and "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850;
Apostolic Letter, "Quum Catholica Ecclesia," March 26, 1860;
Allocutions, "Novos" September 28 1860;
"Jamdudum" March 18, 1861;
and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
X.—ERRORS REFERRING TO MODERN LIBERALISM.
77. In the present day it is no longer necessary that the
Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the
State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship.
(Allocution, "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.)
78. Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some
countries called Catholic, that emigrants shall enjoy the free
exercise of their own worship.
(Allocution, "Acerbissimum," September 27, 1852.)
79. But it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of
worship and the full power given to all of overtly and
publicly displaying their opinions and their thoughts conduce
more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and
to the propagation of the evil of indifference.
(Allocution, "Nunquam fore," December 15, 1856.)
80. The Roman pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to
and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization.
(Allocution, "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.)
----------Syllabus: End--------
PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
The Œcumenical Council of the Vatican.
Adoption and Promulgation of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.
"More than 300 years after the close of the Council of Trent,
Pope Pius IX., … resolved to convoke a new œcumenical Council.
… He first intimated his intention, June 26, 1867, in an
Allocution to 500 Bishops who were assembled at the 18th
centenary of the martyrdom of St. Peter in Rome. … The call
was issued by an Encyclical, commencing 'Æterni Patris
Unigenitus Filius,' in the 23rd year of his Pontificate, on
the feast of St. Peter and Paul, June 29, 1868. It created at
once a universal commotion in the Christian world, and called
forth a multitude of books and pamphlets even before the
Council convened. …
{2474}
It was even hoped that the Council might become a general
feast of reconciliation of divided Christendom; and hence the
Greek schismatics, and the Protestant heretics and other
non-Catholics, were invited by two special letters of the Pope
(September 8, and September 13, 1868) to return on this
auspicious occasion to 'the only sheepfold of Christ.' … But
the Eastern Patriarchs spurned the invitation. … The
Protestant communions either ignored or respectfully declined
it. Thus the Vatican Council, like that of Trent, turned out
to be simply a general Roman Council, and apparently put the
prospect of a reunion of Christendom farther off than ever
before. While these sanguine expectations of Pius IX., were
doomed to disappointment, the chief object of the Council was
attained in spite of the strong opposition of the minority of
liberal Catholics. This object … was nothing less than the
proclamation of the personal Infallibility of the Pope, as a
binding article of the Roman Catholic faith for all time to
come. Herein lies the whole importance of the Council; all the
rest dwindles into insignificance, and could never have
justified its convocation. After extensive and careful
preparations, the first (and perhaps the last) Vatican Council
was solemnly opened amid the sound of innumerable bells and
the cannon of St. Angelo, but under frowning skies and a
pouring rain, on the festival of the Immaculate Conception of
the Virgin Mary, December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
Vatican. It reached its height at the fourth public session,
July 18, 1870, when the decree of Papal Infallibility was
proclaimed. After this it dragged on a sickly existence till
October 20, 1870, when it was adjourned till November 11,
1870, but indefinitely postponed on account of the
extraordinary change in the political situation of Europe. For
on the second of September the French Empire, which had been
the main support of the temporal power of the Pope, collapsed
with the surrender of Napoleon III., at the old Huguenot
stronghold of Sedan, to the Protestant King William of
Prussia, and on the 20th of September the Italian troops, in
the name of King Victor Emmanuel, took possession of Rome, as
the future capital of United Italy. Whether the Council will
ever be convened again to complete its vast labors, like the
twice interrupted Council of Trent, remains to be seen. But,
in proclaiming the personal Infallibility of the Pope, it made
all future œcumenical Councils unnecessary for the definition
of dogmas and the regulation of discipline. … The acts of the
Vatican Council, as far as they go, are irrevocable. The
attendance was larger than at any of its eighteen
predecessors. … The whole number of prelates of the Roman
Catholic Church, who are entitled to a seat in an œcumenical
Council, is 1,037. Of these there were present at the opening
of the Council 719, viz., 49 Cardinals, 9 Patriarchs, 4
Primates, 121 Archbishops, 479 Bishops, 57 Abbots and Generals
of monastic orders. This number afterwards increased to 764,
viz., 49 Cardinals, 10 Patriarchs, 4 Primates, 105 diocesan
Archbishops, 22 Archbishops in partibus infidelium, 424
diocesan Bishops, 98 Bishops in partibus, and 52 Abbots, and
Generals of monastic orders. Distributed according to
continents, 541 of these belonged to Europe, 83 to Asia, 14 to
Africa, 113 to America, 13 to Oceanica. At the proclamation of
the decree of Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870, the number
was reduced to 535, and afterwards it dwindled down to 200 or
180. Among the many nations represented, the Italians had a
vast majority of 276, of whom 143 belonged to the former Papal
States alone. France with a much larger Catholic population,
had only 84, Austria and Hungary 48, Spain 41, Great Britain
35, Germany 19, the United States 48, Mexico 10, Switzerland
8, Belgium 6, Holland 4, Portugal 2, Russia 1. The
disproportion between the representatives of the different
nations and the number of their constituents was
overwhelmingly in favor of the Papal influence."
_P. Schaff,
History of the Vatican Council
(appendix to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees'
American edition)._
The vote taken in the Council on the affirmation of the dogma
"showed 400 'placet,' 88 'non placet,' and 60 'placet juxta
modum.' Fifty bishops absented themselves from the
congregation, preferring that mode of intimating their
dissent. … After the votes the Archbishop of Paris proposed
that the dissentients should leave Rome in a body, so as not
to be present at the public services of the 18th, when the
dogma was formally to be promulgated. Cardinal Rauscher, on
the other hand, advised that they should all attend, and have
the courage to vote 'non placet' in the presence of the Pope.
This bold counsel, however, was rejected. … The recalcitrant
bishops stayed away to the number of 110. The Pope's partisans
mustered 533. When the dogmatic constitution 'De Ecclesia
Christi' was put in its entirety to the vote, two prelates
alone exclaimed 'non placet.' These were Riccio, Bishop of
Casazzo, and Fitzgerald, Bishop of Peticola, or Little Rock,
in the United States. A violent thunderstorm burst over St.
Peter's at the commencement of the proceedings, and lasted
till the close. The Pope proclaimed himself infallible amidst
its tumult. … The Bishops in opposition, after renewing their
negative vote in writing, quitted Rome almost to a man. …
Several of the German bishops who had taken part in the
opposition thought that at this juncture it behoved them, for
the peace of the Church, and the respect due to the Dogma once
declared, to give way at the end of August. They assembled
again at Fulda, and pronounced the acceptance of the decree. …
Seventeen names were appended to the declaration. Among them
was not that of Hefele [Bishop of Rottenburg] who, it was soon
made known, was determined under no circumstances to submit to
the decision of the Council. His chapter and the theological
faculty of Tübingen, declared that they would unanimously
support him. A meeting of the Catholic professors of theology,
held at Nuremberg, also agreed upon a decided protest against
the absolute power and personal infallibility of the Pope. The
German opposition, evidently, was far from being quelled. And
the Austrian opposition, led by Schwarzenberg, Rauscher and
Strossmayer, remained unbroken. By the end of August the
members of the Council remaining at Rome were reduced to 80.
They continued, however, to sit on through that month and the
month of September, discussing various 'Schemes' relative to
the internal affairs of the Church."
_Annual Register, 1870,
part 1, foreign History, chapter 5._
{2475}
But on the 20th of October, after the Italian troops had taken
possession of Rome, the Pope, by a Bull, suspended the sittings
of the Œcumenical Council. Most of the German bishops who had
opposed the dogma of infallibility surrendered to it in the
end; but Dr. Döllinger, the Bavarian theologian, held his
ground. "He had now become the acknowledged leader of all
those who, within the pale of the Romish Church, were
disaffected towards the Holy See; but he was to pay for this
position of eminence. The Old Catholic movement soon drew upon
itself the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. On the
19th of April 1871 Dr. Döllinger was formally excommunicated
by the Archbishop of Munich, on account of his refusal to
retract his opposition to the dogma of infallibility. … A
paper war of great magnitude followed the excommunication.
Most of the doctor's colleagues in his own divinity school,
together with not a few canons of his cathedral, a vast number
of the Bavarian lower clergy, and nearly all the laity,
testified their agreement with him. The young King of Bavaria,
moreover, lent the support of his personal sympathies to Dr.
Döllinger's movement. … A Congress of Old Catholics was held
at Munich in September, when an Anti-Infallibility League was
formed; and the cause soon afterwards experienced a triumph in
the election of Dr. Döllinger to the Rectorship of the
University of Munich by a majority of fifty-four votes against
six. At Cologne in the following year an Old Catholic Congress
assembled, and delegates attended from various foreign States.
… Dr. Döllinger … was always glad to give the Old Catholic
body the benefit of his advice, and he presided over the
Congress, mainly of Old Catholics, which was held at Bonn in
1874 to promote the reunion of Christendom; but we believe he
never formally joined the Communion, and, at the outset, at
any rate, he strongly opposed its constitution as a distinct
Church. From the day of his excommunication by the Archbishop
of Munich he abstained from performing any ecclesiastical
function. He always continued a strict observer of the
disciplinary rules and commandments of the Roman Catholic
Church. … The Old Catholic movement did not generally make
that headway upon the Continent which its sanguine promoters
had hoped speedily to witness, though it was helped in Germany
by the passing of a Bill for transferring ecclesiastical
property to a committee of the ratepayers and communicants in
each parish of the empire. When the third synod of the Old
Catholics was held at Bonn in June 1876 it was stated by Dr.
van Schulte that there were then 35 communities in Prussia, 44
in Baden, 5 in Hesse, 2 in Birkenfeld, 31 in Bavaria, and 1 in
Würtemberg. The whole number of persons belonging to the body
of Old Catholics was—in Prussia, 17,203; Bavaria, 10,110;
Hesse, 1,042; Oldenburg, 249; and Würtemberg, 223. The number
of Old Catholic priests in Germany was sixty. Subsequently
some advance was recorded over these numbers."
_Eminent Persons: Biographies reprinted from the Times,
volume 4, pages 213-216._
ALSO IN:
_Quirinus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
Letters from Rome on the Council._
_Janus (Dr. J. I. von Döllinger),
The Pope and the Council._
_J. I. von Döllinger,
Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees._
_H. E. Manning,
The Vatican Council._
_Pomponio Leto (Marchese F. Vitelleschi),
The Vatican Council._
_E. de Pressense,
Rome and Italy at the opening of the Œcumenical Council._
_W. E. Gladstone,
The Vatican Decrees._
The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution
"Pastor æternus" in which the Dogma of Infallibility was
subsequently promulgated by the Pope:
"_Pius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, with the
approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting
remembrance._ The eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls,
in order to continue for all time the life-giving work of His
Redemption, determined to build up the Holy Church, wherein,
as in the House of the living God, all faithful men might be
united in the bond of one faith and one charity. Wherefore,
before he entered into His glory, He prayed unto the Father,
not for the Apostles only, but for those also who through
their preaching should come to believe in Him, that all might
be one even as He the Son and the Father are one. As then the
Apostles whom He had chosen to Himself from the world were
sent by Him, not otherwise than He Himself had been sent by
the Father; so did He will that there should ever be pastors
and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. And in
order that the Episcopate also might be one and undivided, and
that by means of a closely united priesthood the body of the
faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of faith and
communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles,
and fixed in him the abiding principle of this twofold unity,
and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the
everlasting temple should arise, and the Church in the
firmness of that faith should lift her majestic front to
Heaven. And seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase
of hatred are gathering their strength on every side to
upheave the foundation laid by God's own hand, and so, if that
might be, to overthrow the Church; We, therefore, for the
preservation, safe–keeping, and increase of the Catholic
flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to
be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all
the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant
faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the
institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic
Primacy, in which is found the strength and sureness of the
entire Church, and at the same time to inhibit and condemn the
contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ.
CHAPTER 1. _Of the institution of the apostolic primacy in
Blessed Peter._
We, therefore, teach and declare that, according to the
testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction was
immediately and directly promised to Blessed Peter the
Apostle, and on him conferred by Christ the Lord. For it had
been said before to Simon; Thou shalt be called Cephas, and
afterwards on occasion of the confession made by him; Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God, it was to Simon alone
that the Lord addressed the words: Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to
thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that
thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever
thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed
also in heaven.
{2476}
And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection
bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all
His fold in the words: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. At open
variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has
been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse
opinions of those who, while they distort the form of
government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny
that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other
Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by
Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of
those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed
immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon
the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the
visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same
directly and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus
Christ a Primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper
jurisdiction; let him be anathema.